Managing the “Matchless Wonders”

A HISTORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, 1872–1965

Historic Resource Study, Volume III Park Administrative History, Part I

By Kiki Leigh Rydell and Mary Shivers Culpin

National Park Service Yellowstone Center for Resources Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming YCR-2006-03

Managing the “Matchless Wonders”

A History of Administrative Development in Yellowstone National Park, 1872–1965

Historic Resource Study, Volume III Park Administrative History, Part I

By Kiki Leigh Rydell and Mary Shivers Culpin

National Park Service Yellowstone Center for Resources Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming YCR-2006-03 Design and layout: Virginia Warner

Editor: Alice Wondrak Biel Content review: Lee Whittlesey and Elaine Hale

Photos courtesy of Yellowstone National Park photo archives unless otherwise noted. Cover photo: Madison Museum, YELL #44321. Inside cover photo: Norris Boardwalk, YELL #41214.

Photo research: Bridgette Case, Kiki Leigh Rydell, and Lee Whittlesey.

Suggested citation: Rydell, Kiki Leigh, and Mary Shivers Culpin. 2006. Managing the “Matchless Wonders”: A History of Administrative Development in Yellowstone National Park, 1872–1965. National Park Service, Yellow- stone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, YCR-2006-03. Contents

Preface ...... v

1. “To Protect These Matchless Wonders” ...... 1

2. Management by Fits and Starts, and the Pressure for Preservation ...... 13

3. The War on Vandalism ...... 25

4. Administration in Turmoil ...... 51

5. “Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” ...... 75

6. Refuge in Rusticity ...... 109

7. “A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” ...... 137

Appendices ...... 161

Notes ...... 175

Bibliography ...... 211

Index ...... 214

Preface

The administration of Yellowstone National Park, In addition to reflecting policy, the structures built created in 1872 by an act of Congress, has, from the be- in the park also reflected aesthetic goals or philosophies ginning, been dedicated to protecting the park’s resources important at the time of construction. For example, the and providing opportunities for visitor enjoyment—the buildings at Fort Yellowstone were examples of typical latter, specifically, through interpretation and improve- army architecture, considered appropriate and com- ments. To protect and interpret the park and to provide manding of respect. The museums built in the late 1920s services to the visitors who have chosen to explore its and the early 1930s were of a specific rustic design, a natural splendors, park administrators over the course of style au courant during that period, especially in national time have orchestrated both the construction of a built park architecture across the nation. environment and a constellation of policies that have When the U.S. Congress passed Yellowstone’s allowed park officials to implement and coordinate their Organic Act on March 1, 1872, it withdrew a large area various tasks. This historic resource study and adminis- near the headwaters of the Yellowstone River to be used trative history of the park discusses the ways successive as a public park and stipulated that the land “reserved administrations facilitated the park’s practices of protec- and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale” tion, improvement (public access), and interpretation be used as a “pleasuring-ground for the benefit and by crafting what is, in effect, a cultural landscape—a enjoyment of the people.” The act further stated that built environment with a concomitant set of protective, the park would be under the direction of the secretary interpretive, and public-access-oriented policies. of the interior, who would “make and publish rules and There can be no doubt of a clear relationship be- regulations” for the care and management of the same. tween broad trends in policy and the historic structures These regulations would provide for the “preservation one sees today in Yellowstone. For example, the U.S. from injury or spoliation, of all timber, mineral deposits, Army—and after that, subsequent civilian administra- natural curiosities, or wonders within said park, and their tions—built, throughout the park, a set of snowshoe retention in their natural condition.”2 They set in motion cabins “at a distance of about 10 miles from the outly- a dual mandate, as well as an enormous experiment in ing outposts [the soldier stations],” a distance one park federal land management that has served as an example official, in 1908, “considered to be a fair day’s travel worldwide. The park’s Organic Act also set the stage for for . . . men on snowshoes through the mountains.”1 an often-contentious debate on how simultaneously to These cabins were created to serve a specific protection preserve and promote enjoyment of—in short to both goal—that is, to allow soldiers and then rangers to over- protect and use—a national park. see the park more easily from these outposts and thus, The National Park Service Act of 1916 did little better protect park wildlife and other natural phenomena to resolve the matter. Like Yellowstone’s Organic Act, it from poaching and vandalism—and have since become also contained contradictory goals, ordering the newly part of the park’s cultural landscape and historical legacy. created National Park Service to “conserve the scenery Similarly, Yellowstone’s museums and visitor centers—for and the natural and historic objects and the wild life [in example, the rustic museums at Norris, Fishing Bridge, the parks] and to provide for the enjoyment of the same and Madison Junction, or the Mission 66 visitor center in such manner and by such means as will leave them at Canyon—have also served policy goals of providing unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”3 visitors with information and interpretation of the park’s Thus, all government structures built in the park natural environment and history. and physical changes made to the park over the years have

Preface v been intended to serve either—or ideally, both—of these history of the park’s administrative facilities. mandated goals: protection of, and the provision of pub- This study begins with the first administration of lic access to the park’s treasures. Balancing the two sides Yellowstone National Park in 1872, and ends around of this mandate has not been without hard questions. 1965, with the nominal end of the so-called Mission 66 For instance, how can a building intended to inform program, a massive effort to revamp national parks with visitors be compatible with preserving the park’s natural adequate facilities designed both to accommodate and conditions, when a building, per se, is not natural? Any to educate masses of Americans eager to explore them. history of the administrative facilities built in the park This document examines the structures built during must address these tensions. The complexities set in mo- the first 90 years of the park’s history, and the policies tion by the language of both Yellowstone’s Organic Act adopted by the various administrations both to protect and the National Park Service Act have been central to the park’s resources and to interpret those same resources the administrative history of the park, and thus, to the for visitor enjoyment.

vi Managing the “Matchless Wonders” CHAPTER ONE

“To Protect These Matchless Wonders”

The Administrations of Nathaniel Langford and Philetus Norris

Oh, for wisdom in this council The Park’s First Leaders Of our nation great To protect these matchless wonders The park’s first superintendent, Nathaniel Pitt From a ruthless fate!1 Langford, was born on August 9, 1832, in Oneida —Philetus W. Norris, 1878 County, New York. He was educated in a rural county school when he was not busy with chores on his family’s In March 1872, just seven years after the end of farm. After establishing himself as a banker in St. Paul, the Civil War, the United States Congress passed Senate Minnesota, Langford moved west to join an expedition bill 392, the Organic Act that created Yellowstone Na- to the Idaho gold fields, and then settled for a time in tional Park.2 The first part of this act sought to preserve Alder Gulch (Virginia City), Montana Territory. He matchless natural wonders from “settlement, occupancy, served for several years as an internal revenue collector or sale,” as well as “from injury or spoliation,” and to in the territory, and aspired—unsuccessfully—to be its retain these same wonders “in their natural condition.”3 governor. After visiting the Yellowstone region as part The second part of the act mandated that these wonders of the Washburn expedition in 1870, Langford pushed should be enjoyed by the public; the park was to be a for establishment of the park by lecturing in the East on “pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the its many wonders. President Ulysses S. Grant appointed people.”4 To this end, the park’s Organic Act stipulated him to be the park’s first superintendent in May 1872, that “the Secretary [of the Interior] may in his discretion, and he served in that capacity until April 1877. During grant leases for building purposes . . . of small parcels of and after his stint as superintendent, Langford carried ground, at such places in said park as shall require the on his job as U.S. bank examiner for the territories and erection of buildings for the accommodation of visitors.”5 Pacific Coast states. In 1885, he entered the insurance Money from the granted leases would then be used to business, finally resuming public service as president of manage the buildings and build further improvements, the Ramsey County, Minnesota, Board of Control in such as “roads and bridle-paths.”6 Thus, from the begin- 1897. He died on October 18, 1909, at the age of 79.7 ning, those working to create the park had in mind the The park’s second superintendent, Philetus Wal- area’s improvement for public use. However, the park’s ter Norris, was born on August 17, 1821, in Palmyra, early civilian administrators had little time for improv- New York. He spent his early youth exploring the area ing the park; they had their hands full with the first part around the great falls of the Genesee River before mov- of the mandate, the protection of the park’s wonders. ing with his family to newly opened land in Michigan, The task was enormous, and unfortunately, Congress where Norris was obliged to forgo formal schooling to provided little assistance in the form of funding to aid help on the farm. Several years later, he settled on his improvement efforts. own frontier acreage in northern Ohio, and helped to

“To Protect These Matchless Wonders” 1 establish the town of Pioneer, serving as the town’s first for an appropriation for several years at least.’” Fur- postmaster. In May 1862, Norris left Ohio to volunteer thermore, according to Cramton’s account, “passage his services to the Union cause, but was injured so seri- of the bill [creating the park] would have been very ously in West Virginia that he had to resign his position doubtful,” had Hayden not promised to refrain from as captain in January 1863. After the war, he purchased asking for appropriations.11 Early park historian Hiram 1,900 acres of improved swampland in Hamtramck Chittenden concurred; Congress, he argued, would not Township, Michigan, and laid out a town in his own “have created this reservation had it not believed that no name—Norris, Michigan. additional public burden was to be incurred thereby.”12 Once he had moved his family to Michigan and Hayden and other early proponents of the Organic Act begun a successful real estate business and newspaper, had apparently argued that the park would be self-sup- the Norris Suburban, Norris spent his time and money porting—that income from leases would pay for its exploring the West. After making a trip through the management. However, it is clear that managing the Yellowstone area in 1875, Norris criticized the job Lang- park without appropriations was impossible. Thus, for ford was doing in his newspaper, and was subsequently the first five years, a period of time long enough to allow asked to serve as the park’s second superintendent. He detrimental effects on the park’s wonders, Langford’s remained in that position until February 1882. Accord- “hands were tied.”13 ing to former Yellowstone historian Aubrey L. Haines, It appears that Langford may have been unaware of Norris spread the park’s appropriations too “thinly in an Congress’s plans to forgo appropriations, because he kept attempt to give immediate access to most of its interior,” asking for them.14 He even tried to convince Congress and consequently failed to maintain adequate roads in that some up-front investment would increase the po- the area. After he was replaced, Norris returned home tential for returns later on. “With a liberal appropriation and devoted his remaining years to writing (The Calumet now for roads, and a few other needed improvements, of the Coteau, 1883 and 1884) and to scientific explora- it is impossible to foresee what will be the future of this tion. He died on January 14, 1885.8 remarkable aggregation of wonders,” he wrote in his report to Secretary of the Interior Columbus Delano in 1872, the first of a long series of annual reports originat- A Park Without a Purse ing in the park superintendent’s office, but the only one Langford would write.15 It was clear to Nathaniel Langford, the park’s first Public funds would have to be expended for Lang- superintendent, that one of his duties was to “survey the ford to do his job and for the park to remain a protected park” for possible lease sites for visitor accommodations; place for visitors to enjoy. The “duty of preserving the it was equally clear to him that it would take money to Park from spoliation . . . cannot be performed without accomplish the task.9 Langford also needed money to moneyed aid,” he argued. Because the park was worth help protect the park’s features for visitor “comfort and preserving, the money would be well-spent: “Our pleasure.”10 Unfortunately, money for surveying the Government, having adopted it [the park],” he argued, park, for building any roads or facilities to help protect “should foster it and render it accessible to the people the park, or even for such basic things as his own salary of all lands, who in future time will come in crowds to was not forthcoming, and would not be for all five years visit it.”16 of Langford’s tenure as superintendent. Consequently, Langford’s comment about crowds of visitors Langford’s term in office was unproductive in both would, of course, prove true. However, while early visi- arenas: protecting the park’s wonders and making them tors might not have come in droves, they were plentiful accessible to tourists. enough to cause harm to the area. They killed game, One problem was that Congress had been prom- shot birds, and fished to excess, provoking one critic to ised that no money was necessary. According to historian despair: “there will be none [game] left to protect.”17 Louis C. Cramton, Professor Ferdinand V. Hayden—one They also destroyed thermal features in their search for of the proponents of the congressional act to create the just the right souvenir.18 Langford had to do something. park and the leader of an important exploratory visit With an empty purse, however, his only recourse was to the area in 1871—“had been compelled to give [to with the pen. Thus, he called for laws to strengthen the Congress] ‘a distinct pledge’ that ‘he would not apply park’s rules and regulations—laws that would be enforced

2 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” by means of fines and imprisonment.19 Unfortunately, resident superintendent.22 during Langford’s tenure, any such laws remained as The situation had not improved by 1875; in fact, elusive as appropriations. The park was being pillaged, it had worsened. Montana territorial delegate Martin and there was little he could do about it. Maginnis decried the destruction of the park’s curiosi- Having no funds for salary or expenses, Langford ties. “From members of Secretary [of War William W.] did not remain long in the park.20 In fact, there was Belknap’s party who came down recently,” he wrote, “I no administrative presence in the park during most of learn that the spoliations in the park are great. There is at Langford’s five years in office.21 In the absence of any po- present no way of checking them. Several of the geysers lice protection, wanton destruction of both wildlife and are now nearly ruined and the Government should take scenic features increased. Toward the end of 1873, Henry some action to preserve these wonderful and beautiful Horr, local resident and partner of J. C. McCartney in curiosities before it is too late.”23 In August, Captain the crude hotel built at Mammoth Hot Springs prior William Ludlow visited the park with scientists George to the creation of the park, wrote to Secretary Delano, Bird Grinnell and E. S. Dana. In his report, Ludlow alerting him to the fact that elk and deer were being killed complained about the lack of supervision of the nation’s in the park for their tongues and skins. Horr suggested park. He spotted tourists “prowling about with shovel that Jack Baronett, owner of the Yellowstone River toll and axe, chopping and hacking and prying up great bridge (also built prior to the creation of the park), be pieces of the most ornamental work they could find.”24 given some authority to aid in year-round park protec- He recommended that the “care of the Park, at least tion, stating that only Baronett and Horr himself “would temporarily [be entrusted] to the War Department; at hibernate in this national domain.” Secretary Delano least until such time as a Civilian Superintendent, living also received requests from Governor John A. Camp- in the Park, with a body of mounted police under his bell of Wyoming Territory, and Governor Benjamin F. orders, can suffice for its protection.”25 Things were so Potts of Montana Territory, seeking appropriations not bad that a daily newspaper in Bozeman, Montana, about only to construct roads and provide for protection of ninety miles north of the park, asked, “must this robbing the park’s wonders and curiosities, but also to employ a the Park of its treasures be kept up continuously . . . ? Where’s Langford?”26

YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #147202 Whether one agrees with Chittenden, that Langford’s “hands were tied” and that he was “unjustly charged in the public press with responsibility for a con- dition of things for which he was in no sense to blame,” or with others who claim the park’s first superintendent was too detached to be effective, it is clear that Langford’s tenure as superintendent was unsuccessful in terms of protection. To his credit, his own ineffectiveness in office troubled Langford; as Chittenden put it, it was “of great annoyance to him.”27 Just as he lacked money to protect the park’s natu- ral features, Langford was equally poorly positioned to make any improvements. Although he envisioned a road leading to all the great wonders in the park, and wanted to build “at least one stopping place for tourists,” he received no support from the Secretary or Congress to realize his plans. Furthermore, he refused to grant leases for private “improvements” until he had surveyed the area and had a better sense of Congress’s intentions.28 Some have criticized Langford’s unwillingness to grant leases. Park historian Aubrey Haines, for example, claimed that Langford did not grant leases because of his Buffalo hunting, date unknown. connection to the railroad interests that he hoped would

“To Protect These Matchless Wonders” 3 obtain those same leases later in the process.29 Haines also Protection: The First Pillar of Park speculated that the lack of leases cost Langford his job.30 Management Langford also opted against private roads, or toll roads, in the park. The park’s roads should be “free to all who Norris’s efforts to protect the park and its resources [wish] to visit this wonderful region,” he wrote.31 Thus, were extensive. Despite a lack of guidance from the De- what was already in the park upon its creation—the few partment of the Interior, and inadequate funding from private structures, the road, and the toll bridge—stood Congress, Norris believed it was his duty to call attention as the only “improvements” in the park when Langford to depredations against the park’s wildlife, timber, and was replaced in 1877. scientific resources. His concern for protecting the park resulted in several important achievements. First and foremost, he immediately requested “practical legislation Help On the Way and rules” for park management. In his 1878 report to the secretary of the interior, Norris expressed apprehen- Langford’s successor, Philetus Norris, had visited sion concerning his ability to guard the park against all the park twice prior to becoming the park’s second su- types of transgressions, including unlawful hunting, perintendent on April 18, 1877.32 Norris’s appointment unauthorized disfigurement of the park wonders, and was a clear response by new Secretary of the Interior potential threats from nearby American Indian tribes. Carl Schurz to cries for better protection of Yellowstone. In this and subsequent years, Norris forwarded an array Norris had been one of many who spoke out in protest of requests for legislation that would enable the park’s as Yellowstone’s treasures were marred or stolen during administrators to enforce the rules and regulations neces- its first five years as a park. Thus, Norris was invited to sary to manage the park. In 1881, he tried to strengthen accept what Haines referred to as “the thankless respon- the rules and regulations themselves, by rewriting them sibility” of serving as superintendent.33 in an expanded format and in much more forceful terms. In effect, Norris had been called to the rescue, To the list of regulations, for example, he added, “The and he succeeded to the extent that he could, with little sale of intoxicating liquors is strictly prohibited,” and money and few helping hands. In fact, according to Chit- to other rules he added the words, “strictly forbidden tenden, “the real administration of the Park” began with by law.”36 Norris’s “term of service.”34 He left his mark on the park Second, he advised the Department of the Interior in several important areas. To protect the park, Norris that Congress should appropriate funds for a salary for re-wrote the park’s official rules and regulations and, for a resident superintendent, for a survey to mark the park the first time, actually implemented and enforced them. boundary, and for the construction of roads and bridle To open the park to visitors, he oversaw construction of paths to lessen the potential for wildfire damage to tim- a road to Norris Geyser Basin, and of several adminis- ber.37 Norris noted in his report that “careless use of fires trative facilities (none of which, with the exception of ha[d] destroyed vast groves of timber,” and he believed the Queen’s Laundry bathhouse, to be discussed, have the construction of bridle paths and roads would help survived). With development of the park’s first tourist prevent further destruction.38 Congress had been right, trails, he also took some of the first steps toward provid- he believed, to set aside the park, but it had been wrong ing interpretation of its scenic features. Furthermore, he not to fund its protection. The problem was “not what extended the administrative duties of park management Congress has done, but what it so long neglected to do,” to a new arena—scientific investigation. By exploring the he wrote in 1878. Norris also claimed that it was Con- park, studying its various facets, and writing extensively gress’s “failure to make moderate appropriations for [the about its cultural and natural history, Norris set the prec- park’s] protection and improvement until leases could edent for future park administrations to promote serious be made to assist in rendering it self-sustaining, which study of the area. He also accumulated ethnographic compelled its first superintendent, N. P. Langford, to and natural history collections, which he donated to abandon all efforts for its protection.”39 Congress heard the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. Norris’s plea, appropriating $10,000 in 1878.40 Finally, he left his name on several features in the park, Norris agreed with Langford that neither pro- most notably Norris Geyser Basin.35 tection nor improvement could proceed successfully without the expenditure of time, energy, and funds for

4 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” exploration. Indeed, exploration, Norris argued, should valuable mineral resources. Furthermore, he had visited precede improvements so the latter could be planned the active mining camps at the head of Little Rosebud expeditiously. He wrote in 1879, Creek and the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, and thus was well aware that dealing with mining interests While, by the language of the [1878] act ap- could be challenging. He told the secretary that “the propriating funds, as well as my instructions for entire character of ownership and development of all its expenditure, protection and improvement these mining interests are so dissimilar to the anomalous of the Yellowstone National Park appear more rules and regulations necessary for the management of prominent than its explorations, still, practically, a wild national pleasure resort, that antagonism and considerable of the latter is indispensable for an annoyance so arises and increases at every phase of their intelligent and judicious performance of the for- contact.”44 A boundary survey would help keep the two mer; the real danger, indeed, being a deficiency interests separate, he argued. An added benefit, according rather than an excess of knowledge of the local to Norris, was that surveying and marking a northern peculiarities of that wonderful region prior to boundary would help keep local mountain men from expenditure upon buildings, roads, bridle-paths, disobeying the park’s rules and regulations.45 and other permanent improvements. Once the northern boundary was surveyed, Norris argued, the northern and western boundaries should be Against his better judgment, but because he was changed “to conform to those of Wyoming Territory, bound by the intentions of Congress and the appropria- thus at once severing an unnecessary 3-mile strip upon tions bill, Norris agreed to “push improvements,” thus the west, and also the 2½-mile strip of mining region devoting “less time and funds to exploration,” though upon the north, and leaving the park clear of an an- he believed the latter would “ultimately [be] the most tagonistic mining population, questions of jurisdiction, beneficial to the park.”41 When Congress increased the and [with] its two most important boundaries run, well park’s appropriation to $15,000 in 1880, Norris took full marked, known, and recognized by all parties, without advantage of the opportunity to resume his explorations cost to the park.”46 He did not get the boundary adjust- and pursue further scientific studies.42 ment he advocated, but his request for a survey was Exploration was essential for sound decision-mak- granted. The survey, completed by R. J. Reeves in 1879, ing about improvements, but it was also important as a had the anticipated results. “[I]t has greatly assisted in way to enhance scientific learning. The park, according restraining lawlessness within and adjacent to the park,” to Norris, was a scientific laboratory, and studies of its Norris wrote in his report of 1879, “and in checking the inhabitants, geology, weather, history, and wildlife would influx of ranchmen upon the southeastern border of the enhance the nation’s understanding about the region. Crow Indian Reservation and determining the true loca- Thus, to the two pillars of management mandated by tion of the mining camps across the Yellowstone, from the Organic Act—preservation and use (which required the main portion of the park where the Crow Indians improvement)—Norris added his own: scientific study. seldom go. . . .”47 From Norris’s term in office to the present, Yellowstone While Norris was wary of skirmishes with miners National Park has been a center for research, and in and ranchers, he was more charitable toward the Crow 1998, the U.S. Congress, in the form of the National tribe. Norris respected the Crow Indians and believed Parks Omnibus Act, provided a clear mandate for parks they should be treated fairly and recompensed for their to use the highest-quality science to aid managers in land. He argued for an “honorable treaty” through which making decisions.43 the Crow would “obtain a recession of the old Sheepeater Immediately upon becoming superintendent, mining portion of the Great Bend of the Yellowstone Norris urged the secretary of the interior to support a [present Livingston, Montana] . . . by satisfactory re- boundary survey. The survey was necessary, according to muneration if necessary. . . . [This to be done] in the Norris, because of potential incursions from nearby min- interest of humanity towards the Crows, who . . . have ing interests. Norris knew of the mining areas just north as a tribe ever been our true friends.”48 of the Gardner and Yellowstone rivers (today’s Jardine, Norris’s attitude toward other native inhabitants Montana), and speculated that the narrow canyons of of the Yellowstone Park region—and his prescription for Crevice, Slough, and Soda Butte creeks might contain the relationship between those natives and the whites

“To Protect These Matchless Wonders” 5 who managed and visited the park—was more complex. larger animals will be either extinct or extremely rare He was both interested in furthering the peaceful side elsewhere in the United States.” The time was right for of the relationship and also well aware of the potential action, he argued. “[I]f our people are ever to preserve for trouble. As he saw it, the park was a place where living specimens of our most beautiful, interesting, and tourists should be free of worry and annoyance, not to valuable animals,” he intoned, “here . . . is the place and mention “molestation” by local American Indian tribes. now the time to do it.”52 Thus, while he marveled at his discoveries of various The difficult part of protecting wildlife was that Sheepeater haunts, he was also grateful for the regional these same wild animals were a source of food for visitors military presence that kept local native inhabitants under and area residents.53 Thus, many animals were not only a watchful eye. valued as part of the scenery in the park, but also as an In some ways, native tribes were the least of Norris’s essential source of sustenance. Norris recognized this worries. Faced with so little congressional support for dichotomy and responded by railing against the wanton legislation concerning park protection—Congress had slaughter of large animals in the park while arguing for appropriated funds but passed no rules and regula- the domestication of some for food.54 “Why not thus tions—Norris immediately began to enforce the five rules utilize a waste corner of our . . . National Park by timely established by previous secretary of the interior Colum- protection of our rarest animals, our national bird of val- bus Delano.49 These rules prohibited the following: (1) or, and our matchless speckled trout?” he asked in 1877.55 hunting, “except for purposes of recreation, or to supply In 1878, Norris again called for domesticating some of food for visitors or actual residents”; (2) building fires the large animals in Yellowstone. The bison “could be “except for necessary purposes,” and/or leaving those fires reasonably reared as domestic cattle, . . . and with the before extinguishing them; (3) cutting timber without excellent and abundant timber material, inclosures can written permission from the superintendent; (4) breaking be cheaply made for preservation of a few specimens of the deposits surrounding or in the vicinity of thermal the elk, antelope, and other animals of great interest to features; and, (5) residing permanently within the park future tourists.”56 without permission from the Department of the Interior. In 1879, he repeated his call for the protection and Norris had these rules printed in No. 62 of the newspaper domestication of wildlife. While he believed the numbers he wrote and published from his home in Michigan, the of game had increased a bit, Norris knew the increase Norris Suburban, and he had “several hundred copies [of was not enough to offset the continued destruction of the same] . . . gratuitously distributed throughout the herds. “[W]ith the rapid influx of tourists and demand regions adjacent to the park during the spring of 1877.”50 for such food,” he wrote, “this [increase] cannot long As an added warning against unlawful behavior, Norris continue, and hence the more evident and pressing neces- had a “large number of spirited cautions against fire sity for systematic and permanent protection of all, and and poaching in the park printed upon durable cloth domestication of some of the most rare and valuable of and affixed to trees, and otherwise at prominent points animals in the eastern portion of the park.”57 When his of interest therein and the adjacent places of resort.” domestication plan was not approved, Norris resorted Furthermore, because the superintendent still did not to arguing for increased protection. As part of his case remain in the park through the winter, Norris appointed for tougher federal protection and a management plan, entrepreneur J. C. McCartney to act in his absence as his he applauded Montana Territory for enacting legislation resident assistant, primarily in the capacity of enforcer to protect bison in certain counties.58 of the park’s rules and regulations.51 One way to make it more difficult to poach wildlife Because one area of real concern to Norris was was to restrict the use of long-range rifles in the park. poaching, he took specific and immediate steps to Norris advocated such a restriction, arguing that only preserve the park’s large animals. In his first report government agents or employees should carry such weap- to the secretary of the interior, Norris estimated that ons with them, especially as visitors need not worry about during the spring of 1875, more than 2,000 elk hides, self-protection or securing food now that the park—no plus many bighorn sheep and antelope hides, had been longer “a haunt of hostile savages”—contained “roads, taken from the park, and hundreds of bison and moose hotel [and] other conveniences of civilization,” Norris had been slaughtered. He also predicted that “within a reasoned. He believed that an appeal to the national pride decade the buffalo, the bison, and, in fact, most of these for the preservation and protection of the noble animals

6 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #36574 placed to protect the game, particularly elk and bison, from Clarks Fork miners and other local hunters living near and in the east side of the park. Yount, who began his duties in July 1880, found his previous visits to the park helpful as he began to explore the areas surrounding Yellowstone, Shoshone, Lewis, and Heart lakes. At the end of his first season, Yount reported that all sections of the park needed pro- tection. He also called for “the appointment of a small, active, reliable police force, to receive regular pay during the spring and summer at least, when animals are liable to be slaughtered by the tourists and mountaineers.” Yount advised Secretary Schurz (in language similar to that used by Norris) that this force could also assist the superintendent in “enforcing the laws, rules, and regulations for protection of guide-boards and bridges, and the preservation of the countless and widely scat- tered geyser-cones and other matchless wonders of the Park.”62 Personnel were also needed to help prevent and extinguish human-caused wildfires.63 When Yount resigned his position at the end of the 1881 season, he again suggested to Superintendent Norris that the latter needed a small group of men, most of whom could be discharged at season’s end, to assist in the protection of 64 Harry Yount, Yellowstone’s first gamekeeper. the park. But while Norris was waiting for both “the speedy enactment of laws” and assistance in the form of a police force, he supervised the construction of bridle that roam through this great National Park” would be paths and roads that would make the park more acces- enough to convince local mountain men to stop hunting sible for enforcement efforts. big game in the parks, and that visitors could be turned to fishing and bird hunting for their enjoyment.59 Watching over the park’s wildlife, Norris recog- Scientific Study: The Second Pillar nized, was too big a job for a seasonal superintendent. It Under Norris was a job for a resident superintendent with a number of assistants. For one thing, an increased government pres- Norris spent countless hours on horseback, get- ence would make poaching more difficult. Hence, Norris ting to know the park and its resources. On all such followed up on his plea for adequate funds to house and trips, he was vigilant in his observations and notations support a resident superintendent in 1877 with a call in of the area’s cultural history, natural history, and geol- 1880 for a “force of determined police” to enforce park ogy. His curiosity about the park’s story was part of the rules and regulations and “to properly protect the park, much broader interest in history and natural history its contents, officers, and visitors.”60 To help with this that Norris brought to Yellowstone. His reports to the protection effort, Norris used an increase in appropria- secretary of the interior can be read as natural histories of tions in 1880 to hire a gamekeeper, Harry Yount, who the region, drawn from the kind of notes kept by nine- when not protecting game, was to make explorations teenth-century natural scientists while out in the field. into the unknown sections of the park.61 During the They were long, detailed, and filled with data on just summer months, a log cabin was built for Yount above about every field of study necessary for exploring a new the mouth of Soda Butte Creek. The cabin, which had region, understanding its past, and predicting its future. an excellent view of the creek and the “East Fork of the Norris kept meteorological records and drew sketches; Yellowstone” (today the Lamar River), was strategically he wrote descriptions and dissected fish. His annual

“To Protect These Matchless Wonders” 7 report for 1880, for example, comprised 65 pages of such he reported finding a corral near Amethyst Mountain; details as the “true origin” of such prominent wonders the remains of ancient tree stumps used for breastworks as “spouting or intermittent geysers” and “hot-foaming [fortifications]; “foot-logs” across Crevice, Hellroaring, or laundry springs”—which he believed had incredible and other creeks; and Hudson Bay-type martin steel traps cleansing properties. He also included sketches of such near “the Indian arrowhead quarry at Beaver Lake.”70 things as the rock formations at “Hoodoos, Or remnants He continued to collect specimens for the Smithsonian of erosion in the golden Labyrinths.”65 In 1881, he filled Institution and the Anthropological Society of Washing- eighty-one pages with such insights. ton. On one expedition, he and his work crew unearthed Norris’s favorite fields of study were probably “a circular deposit of several bushels of beautiful white anthropology and archeology. He was interested in the bead-like shot or pebble specimens.” At the end of the cultures of the native peoples who lived in or near the season, Norris took the samples with him to investigate park, and he arrived freely at various conclusions regard- their origins. He entertained theories that the pebbles ing their practices and habits—many of which have sub- might be the petrified eggs of some ancient reptile or, sequently proven to be errant. He claimed, for example, “as [he] was inclined to believe, the berries of juniper that the Crow, Shoshone, and Bannock tribes had made or cedar, doubtless long antedating those of Solomon, little actual “use” of park land, and speculated that they from Lebanon.”71 refrained from venturing into the park, “deterred less On another expedition, this one to the eastern by . . . natural obstacles than by a superstitious awe portion of the park, Norris found the upright poles of concerning the rumbling and hissing sulphur fumes of an American Indian lodge, and the remains of nearly 40 the spouting geysers and other hot springs, which they others. The sites, located between Miller and Hoodoo imagined to be the wails and groans of departed Indian creeks, and on the side of Parker Peak, also produced warriors who were suffering punishment for their earthly remnants of blankets, bed-clothing, apparel, and china. sins.”66 He found traces of the “timid and harmless He also found pathways lined with decaying brush Sheepeater Indians,” which he recognized as connected or poles, used by American Indians for driving game, somehow to the Bannock and Shoshone tribes. “[T]heir mostly in the northern part of the park. One such . . . traditions and the similarity of their languages and “driveway” was on a south-facing cliff overlooking Rustic signals indicate a common origin, or, at least occasional Falls, and another was near Swan Lake.72 Aware of the intermingling,” he wrote under the heading “Aborigines importance of preserving and studying the park’s past, of the Park” in his report for 1880.67 Norris instructed his road construction crew to carefully On his first visit to the park in 1870, Norris had scrutinize “all material handled in excavations; and all examined the “small rude stone-heaps, and . . . many arrow, spear, or lance heads, stone axes and knives, or mining shafts and drifts of some prehistoric race” near other weapons, utensils or ornaments. . . .” Each day, Trail Creek Pass in the Yellowstone (Paradise) Valley all such objects were to be collected and presented to north of the park. Because Norris did not possess the nec- the officer in charge of each crew, so Norris could send essary tools to complete a detailed study of such artifacts, them to the Smithsonian.73 The materials Norris sent to he collected and sent all remains—arrowheads, rock Washington were varied and extensive.74 specimens, obsidian tools, and other implements—from By 1881, Norris had learned quite a bit about the these archeological sites to the Smithsonian Institution park’s history; in fact, he felt confident enough to write in Washington, D.C.68 Norris did not eschew disturb- a 15-page section devoted to the “History of the Park” ing and collecting such remains as long as they were in what was to be his final annual report. In this section, “in public or private museums . . . greatly adding to a he traced the park’s history from the time of early native correct knowledge of, and desire, to visit, the matchless peoples to the trappers who entered the park just a few ‘wonder-land.’”69 years before it was set aside. He also drew a rendition of During a later venture in the Mount Washburn a stump he found with the initials and date (J. O. R., area in 1878, Norris found “the ruins of an ancient, once- Aug. 29, 1819) of an early white explorer to the region loopholed, earth-roofed block-house some 16 by 20 feet embedded in its wood.75 in diameter and of unknown origin.” He immediately Norris’s interests also included the life sciences. reported this and other evidence of pre-park human In a report on the fishes of the park, for example, after activity to the secretary of the interior. For example, describing the ease with which “the yellowish speckled

8 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” salmon trout” could be caught—they took “the hook so park to head off conflict between the Bannock Indians near boiling pools at various localities along the shore and white settlers.79 line,” he wrote, “that they may with ease be cooked in When he was able to start building the park’s first them upon the line without the fisherman changing official structure—an administrative headquarters— position”—he described a parasite that infested most of Norris chose a site near Mammoth Hot Springs. In his them. He also noted a change in the occurrence of the report to Secretary Schurz, Norris described the site, with infestation. “The proportion of them thus diseased,” its abundant grass, wood, and water, being ideal for the he wrote, “has increased from something over one half park headquarters, where Norris planned to construct in 1870 until all are apparently infested.” He was so a “plain but comfortable residence with the necessary curious about the relationship between the infestation outbuildings.” With that in mind, Norris, using the and an increase in the growth of a certain weed along balance of the 1878 appropriations, began to stockpile the lake’s shore that he “sent the skin, a portion of the the necessary lumber and other building materials so meat, entrails, and worms of one of these trout, . . . and construction could begin early in the 1879 season.80 some of the sprigs of this weed, . . . as well as porous yel- Upon arriving at Mammoth Hot Springs for his lowish stone tubes of some worm or insect . . . found in third summer season in June 1879, Norris, accompanied abundance along the bank of the lake, to Prof. S. F. Baird, by a new assistant, C. M. Stephens, and a crew of thirty director of the Smithsonian and National Museum, and men, immediately began work on the headquarters proj- United States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries.”76 ect. He selected a large “natural mound” that provided Norris so strongly believed that science should play a commanding view of the Mammoth Hot Springs a role in park policy and administration that he argued area and all approaches to the park headquarters. Nor- for employing a resident scientist in the park. In his 1877 ris described the site as being one that “commands the annual report, he made his case for such a position: entire mound, valley, and terrace, within range of rifle or field artillery.” The mound, approximately 600' in having an ambitious scientific signal-officer at length, 300' in width, and 150' high, also had a natural the Mammoth Hot Springs or the Geyser Basin, depression, ideal for a reservoir, and “smoothly eroded or both, might with little additional duty or depressions” on either ends, useful for carriageways.81 expense, greatly aid science in solving many in- The site is known today as Capitol Hill. teresting and practical questions connected with By July 1879, Norris’s crew had erected “a genuine the origin, character, duration, and decadence of Montana fence,” nearly two miles long, using pine, fir, . . . various classes of hot springs, the degree of and cedar from the nearby terrace, to enclose headquar- their connection with the earth’s internal fires, ters and a sheltered pasture.82 They also used timber and their combined influence upon the climate and shingles, both of which had been hewn upon the of the park.77 mountain terraces and hauled to the top of the mound, to erect the 40' × 18', two-story blockhouse with three Norris knew early on that Yellowstone would eventually side-wings and an eight-foot balcony facing the terraces. “become and remain the chosen resort” for student and Sitting atop the main building was an octagonal “turret scientist.78 Indeed, that has proven to be the case. or gun-room, 9' in diameter and 10' high, well loopholed for rifles, and all surmounted by a national flag 53' from the ground, upon a fine flag staff or liberty-pole passing Improvement: The Third Pillar of Park from a solid foundation through and sustaining all the Management stories, turret, and roof thereof.”83 Upon completing the blockhouse, the workers began constructing the reservoir While Norris had intended to spend the park’s “fronting” the mound, and a stable and corral.84 first appropriation largely on building a headquarters at Elsewhere in the park, with the help of some Mammoth Hot Springs, he changed his plans in favor of irrigation, Norris experimented with the planting of constructing a road from Mammoth to the lower Fire- turnips, potatoes, and “other hardy vegetables in a hole River. This road, which would link Fort Ellis, near half-acre garden one quarter mile below McGuirck [sic] Bozeman, Montana, to Henry’s Lake in Idaho, would Springs.” The production of vegetables was satisfactory, provide the U.S. Army with a direct route through the but vandalism prompted Norris to plan a fence around

“To Protect These Matchless Wonders” 9 future gardens and to locate them nearer the blockhouse. Laundry bathhouse was, according to park historian This garden experiment was the beginning of what later Aubrey Haines, “the first government building con- became known as the “Chinaman’s Garden.” Norris structed specifically for the use of the public in any also left his trainmaster (foreman) J. E. Ingersoll and a national park.”88 crew to build “a loopholed, earth-roofed log-house and Norris had his workers begin construction of the other improvements” with a stone chimney in a grove bathhouse, intended “for the free use of the public,” of trees between Beehive Geyser and Castle Geyser in in 1881, west of the forks of the Firehole River. The 1879. Norris planned to spend time there during the hot spring by which the remains of the structure stand winter to observe the Upper Geyser Basin year-round, today had attracted Norris’s attention during the previ- but bad weather with heavy snow caused him to abandon ous summer, during the construction of the road from the idea.85 the Riverside Mail Station (near the West Entrance) to Subsequent years in Norris’s tenure as superinten- Marshall’s mail station by Nez Perce Creek, in the Lower dent saw the addition of a few more buildings to the Geyser Basin.89 Construction of the two-room, earth- park’s cultural landscape. At Mammoth, Norris had his roofed bathhouse, which boasted “wooden troughs for crew build a blacksmith shop, barn, and bathhouse.86 He conveying [hot]water thereto,” was not finished before also helped to select a good mail route from the park’s Norris was replaced as superintendent, and subsequent West Entrance, and to establish the site for a mail station superintendents chose not to complete the structure.90 and hotel (never built), along with an earth-roofed cabin The Queen’s Laundry bathhouse was, however, and barn—in the Norris area, as well as a mail station used for a brief span of time. In a guidebook he wrote and barn where the new “cut-off [road] would strike the after leaving the park, Norris explained that one could Madison [River] at Riverside.”87 travel from Marshall’s Hotel “through largely groves and Only one of the structures built during Norris’s glades, and amid unique geyser and other hot-spring time has survived to this day: a half-completed public cones to . . . a bath-house which I constructed in 1881, bathhouse, known by the name of the spring by which or hopefully a better one, [and] test for themselves the it was built, Queen’s Laundry. Surrounded, and all velvety feel and cleansing properties of these waters.”91 but consumed by thermal features today, the Queen’s Another guidebook—W. W. Wylie’s The Yellowstone National Park, or the Great American Wonderland—pub- lished in 1882, recommended that guests visit the YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #129257 bathhouse while staying at Marshall’s hotel, which was situated two miles away.92 Though never completed, the building’s remains are evidence of Norris’s farsightedness, and serve as YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #36540-3

Norris blockhouse. Queen's Laundry ruins, ca. 1960s.

10 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” testament to the “humble beginning to a policy of ac- and geysers there.99 While visiting Mount Washburn, commodating tourists in the national parks.”93 Indeed, Norris envisioned a trail facilitating visitor appreciation: it is the oldest, and thus the “earliest recognition that “No tourist should fail in securing this enchanting view,” providing for visitor accommodation was a legitimate he noted. He also added amenities to the foot trails built use of federal funds within a National Park.”94 It remains under his supervision. For example, in 1881, he had today as the only building left from the pre-military a trail bridge constructed at Crystal Falls and Grotto administrations. Pool (in the Lower Falls of the Yellowstone River area), In 1964, the park’s administration considered along with ladders, pole railings, and some benches. He removing the remains of the bathhouse because it planned to have more substantial timber railings installed “impinge[d] upon a thermal feature.” Aubrey Haines, there as the supply of lumber permitted. at the time a retired park engineer turned park histo- By the end of that year, visitors could walk six rian, objected and, in fact, argued that the structure miles of trail on Terrace Mountain (near Mammoth be restored and interpreted. “If this unusual structure Hot Springs), one mile of trail to the falls of the “East cannot be interpreted within the present scope of plan- Gardner” River, one mile of trail at Monument Geyser ning,” he wrote to the park naturalist, alluding to the (west of Gibbon Canyon), approximately 200 yards of administration’s emphasis on protecting thermal features, trail to the head of the Lower Falls (then called the “Great “it should at least be allowed to remain to a time when Falls”) of the Yellowstone River, and about 200 yards of it will be better appreciated.” He believed that the pro- trail to the river below the “Great Falls.”100 Eight bridle posal to remove the bathhouse was “a purist approach trails covered 234 miles of country; Norris listed them which is both unrealistic and destructive, and I hope for the secretary in his report for 1879: “Middle Gardiner it will receive no further consideration.”95 Haines won [sic], Forks of the Yellowstone, Clarks Fork Mines, Fossil the argument—the building was placed on the National Forrests [sic], Stinking Water, Yellowstone Lake and Falls, Register of Historic Places in 2001, and its ruins remain Mount Washburn, and Grand Canon [sic].”101 in place today. At this point in the park’s history, only local Though few of Norris’s physical improvements to guides were available to help tourists locate the park’s the park remain intact, his legacy lives on in the form of spectacular features. These guides were often of ques- a less tangible, yet equally important kind of improve- tionable experience or character. Norris called them a ment: visitor assistance in the form of signs, trails, and “small but despicable class of prowlers” who preyed on informational writings. Norris firmly believed that one tourists’ desire to see “this peerless region of wonders.”102 of his duties was to “assist tourists with information and Because he was concerned about deceptions foisted off guidance,” and he accepted that responsibility with rel- on visitors by some of these local guides, and because of ish.96 Among other things, he took the first steps toward his experience in the publishing business, Norris made interpreting the park by building guide boards and af- plans to produce his aforementioned guidebook and a fixing them to trees, rocks, and posts. Placed in 1879, good map of the park; he also proposed granting licenses the park’s first informational signs were “well-dressed, and issuing badges to qualified persons to protect visitors painted white, and then black-lettered with the names against such unscrupulous behavior. of the most important streams, passes, geysers, etc., and Norris had at least one plan for “improvement” tables of distances between them.”97 While the signs that never came to fruition. In his report to Secretary “proved . . . of great value to all persons visiting the Park,” Schurz in 1880, Norris expressed his desire to reactivate many unfortunately were destroyed by “opponents of the Liberty Cap “geyser-cone” by “cheaply convey[ing] improvement,” according to Norris.98 into the ancient supply pipe of the cone . . . a sufficient Even when they remained standing, however, quantity of water from the much more elevated Mam- visitors needed more than signs for a successful visit to moth Hot Springs . . . in order to throw an ornamental the park. They also required access to the area’s most column of water to any desired height.”103 In accordance spectacular features. Hence, Norris suggested to the in- with the German chemist R. E. W. Bunsen’s theories of terior secretary that trails, both bridle and foot, be built thermal features (the park’s Bunsen Peak bears his name), throughout the park. For example, he asked the secretary Norris believed that the “terrace-building properties to support the building of a trail through the upper Gib- of the water would soon encase this interesting cone bon Canyon so tourists could view the numerous springs with the inimitably beautiful[ly]-bordered pools of the

“To Protect These Matchless Wonders” 11 terrace formation, and also ultimately surround it with unknown Wonder Land have not been misappropriated an effective and permanent support.”104 A few years prior or misspent”—with respect and hope for the park’s fu- to this report, Norris had inserted a piece of lumber to ture.107 But that future did not involve Norris. Whether support the cone, which he was sure would fall over it was because of pressure from officials of the Northern without assistance from park management. There is no Pacific Railroad, who suspected Norris of showing favor- evidence that this reactivation plan, however, was ever itism toward the Utah Northern Railroad, or because of implemented. political favoritism in Congress, or because of poor road All in all, Norris managed to “improve” the park conditions in the park, Norris was dismissed from his quite a bit, considering the time, energy, and funds he position as Yellowstone’s second superintendent before also devoted to protection and exploration. While Norris the park opened in 1882. was pleased with his accomplishments, especially the new He left a lasting legacy, however. He laid out a blockhouse—he was troubled by the possibility that he primitive road system, initiated the early stages of a had chosen the wrong site for park headquarters.105 By wildlife management program, conducted and supported 1880, because the Utah Northern Railroad was making scientific observations, and built the first administrative greater progress toward reaching the park from the west facilities in the park. His hiring of Harry Yount as the than the Northern Pacific was making from the north, park’s first gamekeeper sparked the genesis of a ranger Norris questioned whether the headquarters should be corps (Yount’s idea). He also took the first steps toward nearer the West Entrance instead of at Mammoth Hot education and interpretation for visitors. He got the Springs, because it appeared that the West Entrance park’s record-keeping program underway and instigated would receive more use than the North Entrance. He some of the earliest scientific experiments in the park. went so far as to suggest that his assistant could occupy While some of these programs were demanded by politi- the original headquarters at Mammoth while an alter- cians and government scientists, Norris’s interest in the native headquarters was established.106 With this idea protection and betterment of the park complemented in mind, Norris suggested to the secretary that land be such external demands. His achievements have been best reserved in the Firehole area, but as Norris’s tenure as described by Haines, who wrote: superintendent was cut short, this plan never material- ized. The second superintendent of Yellowstone National Park was a fortunate blend of the pioneer and the scientist—just the right man Conclusion to open a wilderness. He was practical enough to see the immediate need for trails, roads, and Toward the end of the 1881 season, Norris made buildings, and scholarly enough to record the plans for the following year. He thanked his “own area’s human and natural history; in everything personal assistants” and the secretary of the interior for he was enthusiastic and sincere, and his achieve- the “uniform kindness and assistance” he had received ments were monumental.108 from the department. He concluded his report—what he called his “fair and full statement of facts . . . made to By any standard, Norris rose to the challenges presented show to Congress and the people of the United States, to him and broke administrative ground, facilitating that the slender appropriations which have been made park developments and protection under future for the protection and improvement of the distant nearly administrations.

12 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” CHAPTER TWO

Management by Fits and Starts, and the Pressure for Preservation

The Administrations of Patrick Conger, Robert Carpenter, and David Wear

According to the authors’ extensive research, Super- tum; Hiram M. Chittenden, who served in the park for intendent Philetus Norris’s departure from Yellowstone a number of years as captain of the Corps of Engineers could not have come at a less opportune time. Both rail- and later wrote a history of the park, correctly perceived road and mining interests were pushing for the right to that the sad state of affairs of this period “aroused public enter the park area, and an equally pressing concern was sentiment and paved the way to reform.”4 the rush by an organization called the Yellowstone Park Improvement Company, a subsidiary of the Northern Pacific Railroad (whose tracks were drawing ever closer A Failure to Protect to the park) to take control of major concessions in the park, primarily in the form of hotel construction and Born in Vermont in 1819, Patrick Henry Conger operation.1 moved westward at the age of twenty-two to settle in With growth in tourist numbers outpacing avail- Iowa, where he first farmed and then served in the U.S. able facilities, and with lawlessness in and around the military in several minor positions during the Civil park on the increase, more federal resources were badly War. After the war, he held several patronage positions, needed. What early civilian administrators received in- one of which was agent for the Yankton (Sioux) Indian stead was a continued lack of support from the federal Reservation. Patronage also influenced his acquiring government. As historian Richard A. Bartlett has noted, the superintendency of Yellowstone in April 1882.5 His “So restricted were superintendents by the limited powers brother, Edwin Hurd Conger, was a leading Republican granted them, so poorly were they supported by Wash- congressman from Iowa, and the man who recommend- ington, and so overwhelming were their problems that ed Conger’s appointment to President Chester Arthur, only men of unusual managerial abilities would have William B. Allison, was a Republican senator from the coped successfully with the situation.”2 Clearly, these same state.6 As it turned out, Conger accomplished little challenges required a strong administrative response. while at the helm of the nation’s first park. Chittenden Unfortunately, the first two civilian superintendents to noted that superintendents Norris and Conger “were as follow Norris—Patrick Henry Conger and Robert E. unlike in personal characteristics and views of official Carpenter—were not well-suited for the job, and the duty as it is possible to conceive.” He called Conger’s third, David W. Wear, who showed signs of being a administration “weak and inefficient,” and stated that it better manager, was given little time and opportunity “brought the park to the lowest ebb of its fortunes.”7 to prove himself.3 The four years when these men held In his first report to new secretary of the interior the office represented a period of instability in early Henry M. Teller, Conger commented on the extensive park management. Nevertheless, efforts to protect and vandalism of the park’s wonders. “The cones of the great preserve Yellowstone’s resources did gain some momen- geysers,” he wrote in the autumn after his appointment,

Management by Fits and Starts 13 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #1526 Graham Vest, a U.S. senator from Missouri, who took up the cause of preserving the park and solving its problems. Over the course of his career, Vest had introduced count- less pieces of legislation in Congress, with an eye toward “protect[ing] property and enforc[ing] the laws” in the park and “combat[ting] all proposed encroachments.” According to historian Louis Cramton, he deserved recognition “as the outstanding champion of proper protection and development of the park.”10 In early 1883, Vest used Sheridan’s report to draft a bill whereby the park’s “rules and regulations were given the force of law, and the Park was placed under the laws of Montana and the jurisdiction of Gallatin County, 11 President Arthur (far left) and party, July 1883. with penalties prescribed for violations.” Yet according to historian Aubrey Haines, the bill made no headway, despite a bevy of supporters that included the governor “are already badly defaced, and vast tracts of the beautiful of Montana Territory, many scientific societies, and the forests that adorn this Wonder-Land are laid waste by press.12 Senator Vest next offered an amendment to the fire annually through the wanton carelessness and neglect Sundry Civil Appropriations Bill for 1883 that provided of visitors.” He also decried the poaching of wildlife. money for employing the superintendent and ten assis- “Another source of great annoyance is the hunters in the tants ($2,000 for superintendent and $900 for each of 10 Park,” he wrote, adding “I am sure you will agree with assistants), and for deploying an engineer to supervise the me that it is not possible for a single game-keeper to construction and improvement of the roads and bridges. guard so vast a territory as the National Park and prevent It also included a clause that authorized and directed the the breach of the laws in regard to the killing of game. secretary of war “to make the necessary details of troops When we consider the temptation, and the opportunity to prevent trespassers or intruders from entering the which these vast solitudes afford, we need not wonder Park for the purpose of destroying the game or objects that the laws are broken, and the orders disobeyed.” of curiosity therein, or for any other purpose prohibited While he hinted that assistance was needed, he did not by law, and to remove such persons from the Park if propose any solutions to the problem. Rather, he left it found therein,” if so requested by the secretary of the to “the superior wisdom of the Secretary of the Interior interior.13 In addition to serving as an escape clause, these to suggest some remedy for these evils.”8 In fact, recom- words lent authority to earlier voices—notably Captain mendations for remedies would soon come from several Ludlow’s in 1875, and General Sheridan’s in 1882—call- prominent people in General Philip H. Sheridan’s tour ing for military help with policing the park. party of 1882. Creating the assistant superintendent positions After visiting the park that year, Sheridan, former was an act intended “to correct the most troublesome Civil War general and strategist in the ongoing wars deficiencies of the original Park act,” but it didn’t quite against the Plains Indians, filed a report on the condition work out that way.14 The assistants’ duties—ranging from of the park, calling for enlarging the park’s boundaries dealing with tourists who forgot to put out their fires to to provide a “secure retreat” for game. He also called for catching poachers in the act—were almost impossible to one or two companies of cavalry or mounted police to accomplish. Several assistants, James H. Dean and D. E. protect the park and its wildlife and to enforce its rules Sawyer, for example, tried hard to execute these duties, and regulations. His fellow officer, General D. B. Sackett, but on the whole, most were failures. As one newspaper called for five or six men to patrol the geyser basins so as put it in 1884, “There were some good men among them to protect the cone and geyser formations. Sackett felt, but as a whole they have proven very unsatisfactory.”15 for example, that one troop of cavalry could spend two- According to Haines, Conger shared responsibility and-one-half months during the summer just protecting for the failure of his assistants. First, “[i]t seems likely the formations and extinguishing forest fires.9 that . . . Conger thought of [them] as interpreters” or Sheridan’s report caught the attention of George guides, and not as a police force.16 However, the misun-

14 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” derstanding may not entirely have been Conger’s fault. men among them.25 According to Bartlett, “two or three Although the Sundry Civil Appropriations Act for 1883 understood the task and by trial and error fashioned a stated that the assistants’ duty “shall be to protect the routine of policing the park,” but most lacked the neces- game, timber, and objects of interest” in the park, it is sary skills and were, in the words of Hiram Chittenden, not clear that Conger ever received a copy of that act, “not only inefficient, but positively corrupt.”26 and the letter he received on July 14, 1883, informing Second, while Congress appropriated money for him of the money he and his assistants would receive, their salaries, there was none available for their housing did not spell out job descriptions.17 or equipment. This caused difficulties for Conger, who Second, it appears that Conger was unable to felt protection could best be provided if men were “sta- manage his assistants: his record of paying on time was tioned by twos at five of the most important points in the abysmal and, in some of his dealings with them, he was Park.” He also thought the men should be “suitably uni- “petty,” and even lied.18 There is evidence that Conger formed and equipped,” “well-mounted,” and provided withheld part of Samuel S. Erret’s salary because of a with comfortable cabins, as the law required permanent disagreement between the two men.19 Erret was a “dismal residency.27 Money for cabins did finally arrive at the end failure” as an assistant, but withholding pay, according to of the summer from Secretary Teller, but the assistants Secretary Teller, was outside the “authority of law for such had to use their own resources until then.28 action on the part of [Conger].”20 Conger also neglected Third, extreme lawlessness prevailed in and around to pay a loyal and respectful assistant, William Chambers, the park, and the rules and regulations, even when who wrote to Conger on several occasions asking for the enforced, were weak, because Congress had failed to money owed him. “[I have] written two letters for you provide penalties for transgressions and there was no to send my money,” Chambers wrote in March 1884, jurisdiction within which to try offenders. Thus, the “and have received no answer from you. . . .”21 options were limited. Assistant superintendents could Conger had an especially poor relationship with “expel ‘trespassers’ from the area,” but they knew well one assistant, George L. Henderson, who, while partially that the miscreants would soon return.29 The assistants responsible for the disagreements between himself and could also confiscate goods, but as James H. Dean noted Conger, played an important role in the park’s develop- in one letter to Conger, that punishment was relatively ment. According to Bartlett, Henderson was the park’s ineffective. “In the performance of my duties,” he wrote, second interpreter—after Philetus Norris. Park historian “I find it difficult to enforce the law, there being no pen- Lee Whittlesey, however, has argued that Henderson alty but confiscating the outfit of the offenders. I have was Yellowstone’s first real interpreter.22 Henderson warned the offenders time and time again, that the Law “explained, described, visualized, and gave names to would be strictly enforced. They laughed at the idea of things,” and “made Mammoth Hot Springs a lot more confiscating their outfits which consisted of their wear- interesting,” wrote Bartlett. For example, Henderson ing apparel.”30 In another complaint, a different assistant “installed progressive trails leading from one wonder declared, “I know nothing can be done now [about a to another, with explanatory signs along the way.”23 He poacher] but if we should be empowered to enforce was also ahead of his time in understanding “people the laws soon, I should dearly love to snatch the son of control,” according to Bartlett. Henderson “advocated a Bitch Baldheaded.”31 Things were so bad that at one the widest use of printed circulars and guideposts,” met point, James Dean ended a missive to Conger, “Let the incoming parties and informed them of the park’s rules military have charge of the Park.”32 In his annual report and regulations, and “reported on park conditions, es- for 1882, Conger decried the lack of “legal machinery pecially on the roads.”24 [and] physical force to compel the obedience to the rules Though Conger was not an effective manager (in and regulations issued . . . for the government of the fact, he was a difficult personality), he was not respon- Park.”33 He and his assistants knew what was required. sible for all the problems associated with his assistants. “If the penalty was a fine or imprisonment,” one wrote to Several factors interfered with the success of his assistant Conger, “there would in my opinion, be no trouble to put superintendents that were clearly not his fault. First, a stop to violations of the law.”34 Although this situation because his assistants were political appointees (like would improve, the change did not come soon enough Conger), they were not necessarily well-suited to the to help Conger’s attempts to curtail lawlessness. rigors of the job. There were no experienced mountain While such tools for law enforcement were not

Management by Fits and Starts 15 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #147652 taking of fish by means of seines, nets, traps, or by the use of drugs, or any explosive substances or compounds, or in any other way than by hook and line.”36 These provisions ended the previous state of affairs, whereby hunting, according to Chittenden, was allowed “to sup- ply the wants of camping parties,” and was “practically operated as an unrestricted license.”37 Thus, Conger and his assistants could confiscate the catch or quarry of anyone using unfair hunting or fishing practices—but again, because there were no laws supporting the park’s rules and regulations, there was not much officials could do beyond confiscation, and the offenders were free to poach time and again. Conger entered the park earlier than usual in 1883—on the first of March, because of reports that had reached the secretary regarding the slaughter of game. In his annual report for that year, however, Conger stated that those reports had been “greatly exaggerated.” “[A] few elk and deer had been killed by parties contract- ing to furnish meat for the hotel company,” but the hunting had stopped immediately when he informed them of the new regulations.38 “Hunting here has been Hunters, ca. 1882. practically suspended ever since, except what may be done by stealth,” he wrote, turning a blind eye to his assistants’ reports. Conger surely knew of the poaching forthcoming, the Department of the Interior did ask his assistants observed. William Chambers, for example, Conger for input regarding changes in the rules and wrote to Conger in November 1883, “I hear from men regulations, themselves. The secretary made this request coming in that Reeder [a notorious poacher] is . . . slay- in August 1883, and after receiving no reply, again in ing the game up on Slew [sic] creek.”39 Edmund I. Fish March 1884. While there is no record of the response wrote a note to Conger reporting that another notori- Conger claimed to have given, he apparently felt that ous poacher, who had “slaughtered the elk on Specimen changes to the rules and regulations were secondary to Ridge last Jan[uary],” was “at or near the bridge now on the need for “the legal machinery” to enforce any rules a fishing trip.”40 or regulations.35 Conger’s poor record of protection was especially One legal move forward that did occur during evident when it came to protecting the park from shady this period was a change, in January 1883, in the rules improvement schemes. At the time of his removal, Nor- and regulations regarding hunting and fishing. In a ris had been protesting plans by the Yellowstone Park letter to Conger, Secretary Teller gave notice that the Improvement Company (YPIC) to develop sites in the regulations “in regard to killing game in the Yellowstone park in ways that clearly disadvantaged the public. “The National Park are amended so as to prohibit absolutely arrangement called for the company to pay a rental not the killing, wounding or capturing at any time, of any to exceed $2 per acre for the land occupied in the Park, buffalo, bison, moose, elk, black-tailed or white-tailed which was to include tracts of 640 acres (one square mile) deer, mountain sheep, Rocky Mountain goat, antelope, at each of the seven most desirable sites in the park,” beaver, otter, martin, fisher, grouse, prairie chicken, wrote Haines of the deal.41 Referring to the development pheasant, fool-hen, partridge, quail, wild goose, duck, scheme, General Sheridan wrote, “I regretted exceedingly robin, meadow-lark, thrush, goldfinch, flicker or yellow to learn that the national park had been rented out to hammer, blackbird, oriole, jay, snowbird, or any of the private parties,” in his report of 1882.42 Thanks to Gen- small birds commonly known as singing birds.” Fishing eral Sheridan—and congressional representatives like regulations were also amended, “so as to prohibit the George Vest and Anson McCook from New York, who

16 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” worked closely with Vest, Congress put a damper on the Pacific and hotel monopolists to believe that they had bigger plans of the YPIC. The 1883 sundry appropria- carte blanche to do whatever they wished to get their tions act stipulated that the secretary of the interior was monopoly in Yellowstone functioning profitably,” did only “to lease small portions of the ground in the park not like the squabbling between the company and his not exceeding 10 acres in extent for each tract, no such superintendent. According to Bartlett, Conger’s failure leased land to be within one-quarter of a mile of any of to fully grasp the “ambivalent attitude of his superiors” the geysers or of the Yellowstone Falls.”43 to hotel monopolists in the park cost him his job.48 Conger, at least initially, offered little resistance Conger was also ineffectual when it came to squat- to the plans of the YPIC. He told Secretary Teller, in ters, like John Yancey in Pleasant Valley, Jim Cutler and glowing terms, that the company’s “Mammoth and mag- George J. Jackson in the Lamar Valley, and J. B. Tate nificent Hotel” (the National Hotel) was “substantially and Winfield Scott close to Soda Butte, who, according constructed and of modern architectural design and an to Haines, had settled in the park in the hopes of oc- ornament to the Park.” He also lamented that the “work cupying a piece of land if Congress re-aligned the park would soon be suspended entirely and the whole enter- boundary in a manner similar to that which Norris had prise abandoned” because of “unfriendly legislation,” suggested, thus opening those lands for settlement.49 that is, the language of the sundry act that limited and Yancey, Jackson, and Billy Jump all operated stage regulated lease agreements. He did not favor granting stops on or near the road from Mammoth Hot Springs “extensive, exclusive privileges to any company in the to Cooke City, Montana. Conger supported the men’s Park,” he wrote. “Yet I deem it necessary wholly in the presence in the area because he felt that the stopping interest of the Public that the most liberal concessions at places they provided for tourists were necessary for that all compatible with the Government controll [sic] of the part of the “uninhabited wilderness.” All three men had Park be granted this Company rather than have them at built cabins in the park (either in 1882 or 1883), had this stage abandon the enterprise.”44 In his report to the helped suppress forest fires, had given copies of park secretary, written six months later, Conger still waxed rules and regulations to visitors, and had even provided eloquent about the improvement company. He called accommodations to the public. Although Conger had the hotel they were constructing “very commodious no public complaints about the men, he suspected they and designed to be first class in every particular,” and might secretly be killing game.50 When, in August 1884, considered the company generous for having sold the Secretary Teller asked Conger to remove the squatters park lumber for his own projects in the Mammoth from the park under Wyoming law, he failed to do so. area. He also took the side of the YPIC against people Conger’s days as superintendent of Yellowstone National who complained that the company held “the exclusive Park were numbered.51 right and privilege to do all business of whatever kind or character (aside from that which is done by the Government) within the limits of the Park.”45 Accord- Conger’s Accomplishments ing to Haines, Conger seemed to be in collusion with those trying to monopolize private improvement in the Patrick Conger’s two-year term, marred by in- park. At other times, however, especially later on in his subordination and inconsistencies, was not without ac- two-and-a-half-year term, Conger acted in ways that complishments. During the first summer of his tenure, interfered with creating that monopoly. In particular, he he improved the condition of the park’s roads. Upon took issue with “over cutting of timber for the company arriving in the park in late May 1882, he immediately sawmill and the killing of elk in the Park to feed the hired one crew to improve the headquarters building construction crews.”46 and a second, headed by his son, C. M. Conger, to Because of complaints from all sides, Secretary work on the road between Riverside (on the Madison Teller decided to hire Special Agent W. Scott Smith River near the west boundary) and the Firehole Basin. A to report on conditions in the park. Smith issued a third crew, headed by Captain E. S. Topping, worked on straightforward recommendation: replace Conger.47 It roads around headquarters and on the road from Mam- is also likely that the secretary, who had worked closely moth south to the Firehole area.52 Road maintenance with the YPIC to develop the park’s tourist sites and who, was essential to the accessibility of the park, and it was according to Bartlett, had helped lead “the Northern something Norris had neglected.53

Management by Fits and Starts 17 The crew working on the Norris blockhouse had a 20' × 16' blacksmith shop, with a 10' × 16' addition their work cut out for them. Upon his arrival, Conger used as a cowhouse; a 16' × 37' storehouse; and a 16' had found the headquarters “in a sadly dilapidated × 20' carpenter shop. With rejected lumber and slabs, condition, and hardly habitable.” His crew set about Conger had a wagon shed, harness house, and large cor- whitewashing the inside, Conger reported, “thereby ral built. All of the buildings were covered with board destroying the vermin that infested the premises in such and batten, but he hoped to make them rainproof by vast numbers that no person with a cuticle less sensitive applying shingles at a later date.58 than that of a rhinoceros could live in them through the By that summer, Conger had decided that the log summer months.”54 headquarters buildings of which Norris had been so Conger also settled on an alternative—or “sum- proud were totally inadequate as well as poorly located. mer”—site for administrative headquarters. Because Thus, he advised Secretary Teller that he would soon Conger arrived in the park via the West Entrance and provide him with an estimate of how much it would cost stayed two nights at Marshall’s Hotel, west of the Firehole to remedy the situation, to be presented to Congress as River, he understood the popularity of the geyser basins an appropriation request. Conger complained that the for park visitors. Visitor needs in the geyser basins, and blockhouse was exposed to high winds and situated a his road crews’ needs for a base for supplies and storage long distance from a water source and wood. Because prompted Conger to plan an additional headquarters he believed the park was free from potential attacks by site in the area. During the summer of 1882, his crews American Indians—Norris’s primary reason for locating began work on the park’s “summer headquarters” in the the buildings where he did—Conger hoped to replace Firehole Basin, a centrally located site that was a day’s Norris’s headquarters with a grander administrative distance from other areas in the park. They built a two- building. “Heretofore these rude cabins were all that room, one-story, 34' × 22' storehouse of hewn logs. The were required,” he mused in his report to the secretary, storeroom, separated from the front room by a solid log “but all is now changed here. We have railroads, the partition, was floored with 5" thick hewn logs, closely telegraph, and great hotels, with all the crowd [sic], fitted for protection against vermin and squirrels, and business, and fashion that these wonderful civilizing had a strong door and one window. The front room did agencies imply.”59 not have a wooden floor during the first summer, but Unfortunately for Conger, finding money for Conger installed an old cooking stove to provide warmth construction remained a problem during his tenure as for road crews and visitors passing through. This room, superintendent. In his first annual report (completed in which had two windows and an exterior door, was also December 1882, after his first summer of duty), he had used by visitors to store their luggage as they enjoyed reminded members of Congress that the park needed the park’s interior wonders.55 As part of the same devel- adequate funds if it was to be enjoyed by present and opment, the crew built a 20' × 20' blacksmith shop of future generations. He asked them to consider how similar construction to the storehouse, and a 10' × 15' far $15,000 would go toward road construction and coalhouse. Both the blacksmith shop and the coalhouse maintenance in their own states, notwithstanding the were chinked on the interior and daubed on the exterior; park’s remote location, which greatly inflated the cost the roofs were earth-covered.56 Before Conger left the of building materials and other supplies brought from Firehole Basin in mid-September, his crew added three elsewhere.60 hewn timber footbridges over the Firehole River. One With passage of the sundry appropriations act of of the bridges, 50' in length, was constructed near the March 1883, Congress authorized more money for “the storehouse over the “Little Fire Hole” River (today’s Nez protection, preservation and improvement” of the park, Perce Creek). The other two, 130' in length, were built in the amount of $40,000. Of that sum, $11,000 was over the “Great Fire Hole” River. All three bridges were earmarked for the salaries of Conger and his assistant su- built with handrails along one side.57 perintendents. Responsibility for the remaining $29,000 When Conger arrived for the 1883 season, he rested in the hands of an engineer officer, assigned by the found the March weather mild enough to begin con- secretary of war. This position was filled, initially, by First struction of additional support buildings at the Mam- Lieutenant Dan C. Kingman of the U.S. Army Corps moth headquarters. Aided by the hotel’s offer of cut of Engineers. Secretary Teller advised Conger of the ar- lumber from their sawmills, Conger was able to build rangement in July 1883: “I deem it advisable that your

18 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” duties be confined to a general supervision of the park however, it is not clear how many of the five were actually and control of the Assistant Superintendents, leaving to constructed, because in October 1884, Secretary Teller the engineer all matters relating to the improvements had to re-authorize Conger’s replacement to build cabins contemplated.”61 Conger disliked the plan, and did not for his assistants.69 hesitate to share his frustration with his superior. In his From the beginning of the 1883 building season, annual report, written two months later, Conger decried controversy marked the construction process. In August, the situation, calling it “unwise:” in accordance with the sundry appropriations act passed that March, First Lieutenant Kingman arrived with his [O]ne responsible head [is necessary] for the assistants to supervise construction of the park’s roads transaction of business here as elsewhere. By the and bridges. Shortly afterward, conflict erupted between operation of this law the Superintendent of the the Department of the Interior and the Department of Park is left without a dollar for any incidental War over authority in the park. Prior to his departure expenses whatever for the care of these headquar- from the park that fall, Lieutenant Kingman had left ters, no provision for the Government horses and orders that the superintendent could not use any lumber mules, repairs of the buildings and fences, and from the Corps of Engineers’ recently installed sawmill. many other things which I need not enumer- Conger, who was eager to provide housing for his assis- ate. . . . I cannot believe it was the intention of tants and begin improvements to the Mammoth head- the makers of this law that the Superintendent quarters buildings, and who liked Kingman personally, should be left without the means to protect was aware that the army controlled appropriations for and preserve the property of the Government the mill’s operation, but still felt there must be “some intrusted to his care and keeping.62 mistake.”70 A few months later, Kingman wrote Conger announcing he would issue a special order allowing the Conger later worked out an arrangement with Kingman superintendent to use the sawmill during off-season that provided him $5,000 “for contingent expenses for months—for a small usage fee.71 In December 1883, the protection and management of the Park.” Teller Conger asked the secretary of the interior to “instruct me agreed to the adjustment.63 just what my authority is in regard to the public property Another of Conger’s continued concerns was the here including the buildings.”72 In April 1884, Teller housing of his assistant superintendents. He had first responded to Conger’s plea for clarification. “[Kingman] suggested that housing be constructed in September only asks that you shall, before obtaining any consid- 1882, in his initial annual report. However, it took erable quantity, have his order for its delivery,” Teller months to get permission from Washington to begin equivocated. “Under the circumstances the Department construction. In late fall 1883, Conger converted the does not regard his requirement as unreasonable or as stage station occupied by Billy Jump near Soda Butte evincing any inclination to infringe the scope of your into a government station for use by his assistants. Other rightful authority over the park,” he wrote.73 assistants were housed in the new blacksmith shop, in While none of the buildings constructed during Conger’s residence at Mammoth Hot Springs, and at a Conger’s tenure as superintendent are extant, the loca- “shanty” (the cabin Norris built in 1879) in the Upper tions he identified as important were considered equally Geyser Basin.64 At roughly the same time, a full year so by subsequent administrations. The Department of after he had made the initial request, Secretary Teller the Interior gave superintendents of the time almost finally authorized Conger to plan the construction of “a complete responsibility for choosing the locations of sufficient number of cabins, at such points as might be administrative buildings, and for approving or even se- required for the use of the assistants.”65 Conger planned lecting sites for leased structures as well.74 Because there to build “five comfortable cabins” throughout the park.66 were no required or recommended building standards or Not until the following spring, however, were the plans architectural styles, superintendents chose the size and approved and could construction begin.67 According to style of the administrative structures themselves. For a Montana newspaper, four of the cabins, or “stations,” example, when Conger discussed his building plans for were being built in July 1884: at the “[Mammoth Hot] the structures erected in 1882, he wrote, “After having Spring[s], Norris, . . . Firehole basin, the Great Falls and resolved to build, and decided upon the size and style the Lake.”68 Except for the cabins at Norris and Lake, of the buildings, I drafted the plans and set part of the

Management by Fits and Starts 19 men to getting out the timber for the proposed build- ter managed “with a view to the full accomplishment of ings.”75 the purpose for which it was set apart.” The extent of During the early part of 1884, Conger, like Norris, Joslyn’s disrespect for Patrick Conger was evident when became entangled in a political web—one that proved he asked Carpenter to enforce “a more strict obedience similarly fatal to his own superintendency. After refus- than has heretofore been required by the Superintendent ing to follow the order from Secretary Teller to remove (your predecessor) to the regulations which have been the “squatters” from the park, and accused of neglect in established and the instructions given by the Department protecting the park, Conger was asked by Teller for his from time to time.”80 In particular, Joslyn was referring resignation in July. Much of the criticism against Con- to the fact that Conger did not remove the squatters as ger was based on his failure to prevent illegal practices. he had been ordered to do. According to one newspaper, W. Scott Smith’s report to If Joslyn, at least, sought a greater degree of pro- the secretary complained that hunting had been going tection for the park, ironically, by all accounts, he got on “openly” in the park, and that “[n]o notices against less. Chittenden’s view of Robert Carpenter’s term as hunting were posted.” Smith also asserted that “[n]o of- superintendent was grim. “[Carpenter] went upon the ficials were at the principal objects of interest to protect theory,” Chittenden wrote, “that the Park was created them from specimen seekers.”76 as an instrument of profit to those who were shrewd In fact, Conger had asked the Interior Department enough to grasp the opportunity.”81 Indeed, Superin- for copies of the rules and regulations for distribution tendent Carpenter’s ten-month tenure was plagued by in the summer of 1883, but had been told he should a scandal resulting from his association with the Yellow- make suggestions for amendments before the depart- stone Park Improvement Company. In their respective ment would go ahead with a reprinting order.77 Conger histories of the park, Bartlett and Haines chronicled the defended himself in an article published in a local questionable alliances Carpenter made with the YPIC’s newspaper. “[Conger’s] force of assistants . . . was small,” Carroll T. Hobart, which tarnished any role Carpenter according to the article, “and had to travel afoot. He was might have played in promoting fair and unbiased park constantly interfered with by the hotel people, the extent management.82 of whose powers he did not know as he had not been Scandals aside, Carpenter’s days were numbered provided with any copy of the lease privileges. Moreover when the Democrats won the U.S. presidency in No- he [was] misrepresented by Secretary Teller inasmuch vember 1884. Thus Carpenter—who arrived in the park as only that part of his correspondence [was] published in September 1884, spent the winter in Washington which was of a condemnatory character, the explanations and was dismissed on May 29, 1885—contributed being entirely suppressed.”78 These efforts were fruitless, minimally to the park’s protection and improvement. however, and Conger’s replacement, Robert E. Carpen- He did, however, remove the squatters’ cabins in the ter, arrived in the park in September 1884. Lamar Valley—those to which Joslyn had referred in his letter—and some poachers’ cabins in isolated areas of the park.83 The job was not an easy one—Joslyn The Mandate for Protection had even offered to “invoke the assistance of the army as authorized by law” if Carpenter had wanted it. But Born in 1834, in Harford, Pennsylvania, Robert Carpenter managed to oust the trespassers without the Carpenter graduated from Pennsylvania’s Wyoming help of the secretary or any troops.84 Seminary and tried business, gold seeking, and teaching Yellowstone’s fifth superintendent was David W. before serving briefly as part of an Iowa regiment in the Wear. Born in Missouri in 1843, Wear became a lawyer Civil War. His brother, Cyrus C. Carpenter, Governor before turning twenty-one. When the Civil War broke of Iowa, secured his position as Yellowstone’s fourth out, he enlisted on the Union side, and rose quickly to superintendent.79 the rank of colonel. After the war, he practiced law and Shortly after Carpenter arrived in the park, Acting was elected to the Missouri legislature, where he served Secretary of the Interior Merritt L. Joslyn instructed him two terms as state senator.85 to keep the Department apprised of his “operations and From the outset, Wear knew that protecting the of affairs generally in the Park.” Joslyn invited Carpenter park from vandalism, poaching, and disreputable de- to make suggestions about how the park might be bet- velopment would be his major task. He was chosen by

20 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Senator George Vest, who had written to Lucius Q. C. a superintendent be selected, who shall not only Lamar, secretary of the interior under President Cleve- be a man of good business qualifications but also land, pleading with him to replace Carpenter: “I have a person interested in scientific research and com- received information recently which satisfies me that petent to direct natural history surveys. 2. That unless some change is made in its management, this the superintendent be authorized to select for his park will become absolutely worthless for the purposes assistants persons competent to make collections intended by Congress. . . . I beg that . . . some one may and studies in natural history, observations in be put in the place of Carpenter. His retention in office meteorology, and observations on the physical is equivalent to the destruction of the park.”86 phenomena presented in the geysers.88 Wear also had the support of another long-time park protector, geologist Arnold Hague. Probably the Powell called for a year-round force of assistants who, single most important visitor to the park during Conger’s with their superintendent, “could at the same time ac- tenure as superintendent, Hague had led the Yellowstone complish much work for science without in any way National Park Survey for the U.S. Geological Survey and diminishing their efficiency as guards.”89 then, in his capacity as U.S. Geologist, outfitted Senator By 1885, protecting the park had clearly become Vest with information for an articulate report to park a national concern, as many popular magazine articles supporters in December 1883. The report outlined for drove home the severity of the park’s situation.90 Wear all Americans the significance of the park’s resources understood his responsibility. As he described it, his job and the potential threats to “maintaining the forests, was to “protect the game and the objects of interest in the the protection of the game, and the preservation of the Park, which had apparently been little thought of except natural curiosities of a scientific interest.”87 for the purpose of spoliation or total destruction.”91 An Some of the most intense pressure for park protec- article in the Livingston (Montana) Enterprise quoted tion had come from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) President Cleveland as warning Wear, “If you don’t take scientists, particularly Hague. The USGS had been in care of the park, I shall have to turn you out.”92 the park since 1883, completing work on geologic and Unbeknownst to him, Wear had received some topographic surveys. While Superintendent Carpenter temporary—and eventually controversial—help on was still in charge of the park, USGS Director John the protection front. In 1884, the state of lawlessness Wesley Powell had sent a letter to the interior secretary in the park had caused Wyoming’s territorial governor, elucidating the importance of the park to science: William Hale, no small measure of concern. To prevent destruction in the park, he asked the legislative assembly [The park] is . . . of great interest from the to extend Wyoming law into the area. They did as much standpoint of meteorology. . . . It is also of great on March 6, with legislation “to render operative and interest as a natural-history region, . . . it is the effectual the laws of the Territory of Wyoming within habitat of many Arctic species of plants and that portion of the Yellowstone National Park lying animals; and having been reserved as a park, within said Territory, and to protect and preserve the it is desirable that it should remain as a secure timber, game, fish, and natural objects and curiosities retreat for many animals that now roam through of the park, and to assist in preserving the rights of the the Rocky-Mountain region, but which must United States therein.”93 However questionable it was eventually become extinct during the progress of to place a national park under a state’s system of law, settlement and civilization unless a continuous this legislation did add a degree of enforceability to the existence for them is secured under the protection park’s rules and regulations. Assistant Superintendent afforded by the Park. Again, in the progress of Josiah W. Weimer, for example, wrote to Conger, who exploration in the Park it has been discovered to was still superintendent at the time, that he thought the be a region of much archeological interest, as it Wyoming legislation would help curb vandalism. “You was formerly inhabited by tribes of Indians hav- can tell governor Hale, if he is still there that his law ing many interesting arts adapted to the peculiar adds another object of interest to tourists,” he wrote, conditions of life therein presented. . . . I beg to “in the shape of a club in my hands. The scheme works suggest that the Park hereafter be utilized as a well even as a bluff and when properly applied will work scientific station in the following manner: 1. That much good.”94 Unfortunately, according to Haines, the

Management by Fits and Starts 21 men assigned by the governor to uphold the law in the the dismissal of several men, Wear hired experienced park were “almost unlettered products of the frontier, mountain men Jack Baronett and Edward Wilson to help capable of meting out only the rudest justice, and cer- him.101 The results looked promising, as the “revitalized tainly strangers to the finer points of the law.” This fact, force began to perform quite credibly,” wrote Haines.102 coupled with the provision in the law that half of the The new employees brought a sense of lawfulness to the assessed fines would go to the attending officer, witness, park, as poachers, really for the first time, were brought or informer, made it little more than a matter of time to trial—albeit under Wyoming law—and had their guns before the legislation failed.95 confiscated. The Livingston Enterprise extolled the virtues To better protect the park, Wear attempted to of this new management: “The officers of the Park are improve his work force of assistants. This was no easy vigilant and energetic in the discharge of their duties task, given that decisions about who should be hired or and ever on the alert to catch all trespassers and while it fired did not lie with him. “The Secretary of the Interior gives the superintendent or his assistants no pleasure to names my subordinates. You had better state that,” he punish anyone they have a sworn duty to perform, and told the press in June 1885, just a month before he took will do and are doing it fearlessly.”103 over the superintendency. “I am liable,” he quipped, “to In addition to improving the make-up of the pro- have trouble if the wrong impression gets out that I have tective force, Superintendent Wear also tried to increase so much patronage to dispose of.”96 Even the Livingston its size.104 In his first report to Secretary Lamar, Wear Enterprise recognized the inadvisability of this situation. asked to increase the number of assistants from ten to Just the month before, it had editorialized that if the park fifteen, and to increase their annual pay from $900 to was to have efficient assistant superintendents, “more $1,000. He also suggested that each assistant receive power over his assistants [should] be conferred upon $100 per year for furnishing his own horse and equip- the superintendent.” In particular, the assistants “should ment. Stock and equipment would be better cared for, know that disobedience or opposition to his directions he reasoned, if they belonged to the assistants instead may lead to immediate suspension from duty and pos- of the government.105 sible discharge,” the paper warned. It acknowledged Despite Wear’s attempts to increase protection, he that much of the trouble with Conger’s administration was pressured to do even more. Park visitors began to derived from his lack of control over his subordinates. write to the secretary of the interior, complaining, for “The lack of such power in the superintendent has led instance, about the lack of signs and notices regarding to trouble in the past, and will have the same effect in park rules and regulations. One visiting attorney from the future,” the paper predicted.97 Circleville, Ohio, noted that he had traveled for more Even with this handicap, however, Wear was de- than two hundred miles throughout the park and “did termined to make significant progress. On the day after not see in any place the slightest notice of any kind in his arrival in the park, he penned a letter to Secretary regard to the government of the Park.” To remedy this Lamar, telling him that many of the assistants were “old, situation, Wear requested permission to hire someone to worn out, and utterly unfit.” Wear wanted men that were prepare guide boards and paint signs during the winter “sober . . . truthful, brave, and well versed in woods or of 1885.106 mountain craft,” with experience and integrity counting So busy was he with matters of protection, and so most among the selection criteria.98 The previous group short was his tenure as superintendent, that Wear had of assistants had lacked integrity, he noted, and had little time to accomplish any structural improvements colluded with the poachers. Game “had been shot with in the park. In September 1884, Superintendent Car- impunity,” he wrote to the secretary, “and marketed at penter had hired Silas McMinn (who was developing the the hotels without any interference on the part of the McMinn Coal Mine on the flanks of Mount Everts) to officers whose sworn duty it was to protect and prevent whitewash the blockhouse and paint the roof. McMinn its destruction.”99 never completed the job, however.107 Thus, the block- An exacting employer, Wear expected much from house remained in poor condition when Wear assumed his assistants, and acted quickly when they did not mea- the superintendency. He did occupy the building after sure up. For example, just a month after hiring William making it “passably comfortable for the summer,” and J. Marshall to replace Daniel E. Sawyer in July 1885, he then built an addition onto one of the assistant’s houses obtained permission to release him.100 After demanding for the winter.108 He also informed the secretary of the

22 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #127319 interior that a new superintendent’s residence should be built as soon as possible.109 One of the most troublesome issues for Wear was the matter of laws governing the park. Wear believed that enforcing the territorial laws of Wyoming in a national park was “of very questionable validity, even within that portion of the Park lying wholly within Wyoming Territory. . . .” The situation with respect to jurisdiction was worse than dire, he contended. A national park needed national laws and Tourists camping, ca. 1880s. a national tribunal for enforcement. “[U]nless some stringent enactment is made, and that at the earliest possible time, it will be too the national laws and regulations should be enforced by late,” he wrote to Lamar. As a remedy, Wear suggested a national tribunal.”112 Those complaints, coupled with creating “a court within and for the Yellowstone Park, Phillips’s report, served as the last straw: the Territory of with exclusive jurisdiction of all misdemeanors, and with Wyoming repealed the act permitting use of Wyoming power to examine and hold to bail all cases of felonies, to law in Yellowstone on March 10, 1886, and Wear’s role be tried at the nearest court having criminal jurisdiction.” in the affair came under fire.113 He thought that if his assistants could be “ministerial There were those, however, who supported Wear. officers,” there would be “comparatively little trouble in The Livingston Enterprise, for example, reported that protecting and keeping the Park in a state of preservation Wear had made every attempt to deal with the inap- beautiful to look upon.” Wear urged expediency in the propriate fine issue fairly and in-house. “When the party creation of this court.110 [of visitors] got back to Mammoth Hot Springs and laid Regarding jurisdiction, Arnold Hague recom- the case before Superintendent Wear,” wrote the paper, mended to the interior secretary that the Interior Depart- “he peremptorily discharged Joe Keeney from his official ment have an agent review the condition of the park with position [as the constable under Wyoming law at the respect to its protection, preservation, and improvement. Lower Geyser Basin] and said that Hall [the judge under Lamar chose Attorney W. Hallett Phillips, of Washing- Wyoming law] would receive the same medicine.”114 ton, D.C., and asked him to make suggestions about how The paper further argued that “Wear does not desire to to improve park management and better provide for its persecute tourists or see any ultra-legal process carried enjoyment. Phillips, like Wear, recommended exclusive on by professional informers and prosecutors. He merely jurisdiction of the park and the employment of a suf- wants the laws enforced against the Park and the Park ficient number of competent assistants.111 protected.”115 In the following year, the paper opined that The jurisdiction issue was ultimately resolved, “Superintendent Wear’s administration has inaugurated a but not before it cost David Wear his superintendency. new and, as we think, desirable regime in the Park. With In the summer of 1885, a party of visitors, including the exception of Norris, former superintendents have a judge, a congressman, and the editor of the Chicago done little or nothing by which to earn their salaries. Col. Tribune, Joseph Medill, were apprehended and then Wear has adopted a much more vigorous policy and has fined for not adequately extinguishing their campfire, thereby invited wholesale criticism.”116 Wear’s problem, even though they had evidently made reasonable ef- according to the paper, was not administrative policy; it forts to do so. The Wyoming constable and judge in was politics. The defendants had been Republicans, and charge of the case were ridiculed in the local paper for Wear was a democratic appointee, simple as that. “Per- their “Much-Ado-About-Nothing” approach to the haps this political chain may somewhat account for the administration of justice, and Medill argued, using the vehement criticisms that are being made on the present Chicago Tribune as his forum, that “in a national park condition of affairs in the Park,” chided the paper, “all

Management by Fits and Starts 23 of which have grown out of the alleged affront to the such as John Wesley Powell and Arnold Hague of the sacred person of the Illinois statesman.”117 U.S. Geological Survey had called for trained, educated The situation in the park grew worse after repeal of men; Wear and others desired men from the West who the law that had placed the park under the jurisdiction were experienced in mountaineering and woodcraft. of Wyoming Territory. With no laws to punish offend- Articles in American Naturalist and Scientific American ers, depredations substantially increased. According to had proposed an increase in the “guards or patrol” in Haines, local mountain men, tourists, and even park the park from 15 to 25, and Smithsonian Institution employees were “emboldened by the obvious fact that Secretary Spencer Baird had called for the employment they could once more defy the rules and regulations of a naturalist for the park.121 with impunity.”118 Whether because of the chaos that A second, and perhaps more important issue ensued once Wyoming law was rescinded, politics, or a concerned the nature of park protection. As protection distrust of civilian park management, the fate of Wear’s became a central concern for the scientific community superintendency was sealed. When, in August 1886, and the nation at large, pressure mounted for improve- Congress did not appropriate any funds to maintain the ments in the management and preservation of the park. park or pay for the salary of the superintendent, Wear Calls for “protecting and keeping the Park in a state of stepped down, and Secretary Lamar, in accordance with preservation beautiful to look upon” were common.122 the 1883 sundry appropriations act, was forced to ask for For example, in a letter to Senator Charles Manderson assistance from the War Department.119 Thus, the sum- of Nebraska, a member of the Committee on Territories, mer of 1886 marked a major shift in park management, Hague urged Congress to enlarge the park in order to with a transition from civilian to military authority. preserve its watershed and provide sufficient habitat Montana’s territorial delegate in Congress approved for wild animals.123 George Vest, among many others, of the change. When asked why Congress had not appro- also continued to speak out numerous times in favor of priated money for the superintendent’s position, Joseph protecting the park. K. Toole replied: “Merely because the leading men of Some influential politicians argued against any both houses who had visited the park felt as if there was a form of improvements to the park as a way to protect sort of ring there that ought to be broken up.” For Toole, it. In the summer of 1885, a special committee from the decision to call in the military was a logical one. The the House of Representatives, including Representative idea was hardly new—both Generals Philip Sheridan and William Holman of Indiana, visited Yellowstone to D. B. Sackett, and Captain William Ludlow had publicly investigate park affairs. While the committee’s report advocated turning to the War Department, and Toole argued strongly for keeping the park under Wyoming was convinced that the change “would work well.”120 law and even rethinking its national park status, it also While no one could foresee just how well a military recommended that Yellowstone’s grandeur be protected administration would work, it seemed to many to be by sparing it, “so far as possible . . . the vandalism of im- the best solution for protecting the park from vandalism provement.”124 These comments may have been inspired and political maneuvering. Thirty-two years would pass by the nation’s experience with over-development of before civilian authority returned to the park. other popular tourist sites, like Niagara Falls, which had lost much of their natural appeal at the hands of com- mercialization.125 Yellowstone National Park’s “great and Conclusion only charms,” the report continued, “are in the display of wonderful forces of nature, the ever varying beauty of Very little progress was made protecting the park the rugged landscape, and the sublimity of the scenery.” and developing an infrastructure to improve public “Art,” it concluded, “cannot embellish them.”126 Indeed, access during the superintendencies of Patrick Conger, this growth in national interest in park protection was Robert Carpenter, and David Wear; indeed, the first two perhaps the most critical development in this four-year tended to be plagued by inefficiency. However, several period of the park’s administrative history. Growing important issues surfaced during this time that had demand for protection had set the stage for the transfer long-term ramifications. One was the type and number of management of the park to the U.S. Army.127 of assistants who should protect the park. Scientists

24 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” CHAPTER THREE

The War on Vandalism

The United States Army Takes Control of Yellowstone National Park 1886–1906

The Canyon of the Yellowstone . . . is the artistic only those species deemed worthy of protection at the culmination of Nature’s efforts there. She held time), and in building an infrastructure of administrative them long in her safe-keeping, until she could facilities that is still in use today. give them as a precious possession to a great Several factors contributed to the military’s success. People.1 First, the army brought a proven management structure —Arnold Hague, 1904 that encouraged accountability and responsibility. In his last annual report, the first acting superintendent During the first eight months of 1886, a struggle during the military period (technically, all military over management of Yellowstone National Park took superintendents were referred to as “acting superinten- place in Washington, D.C. In the halls of Congress, dents” until 1907, when S. B. M. Young returned for politicians debated how to handle the controversies that his second stint as head administrator in the park and swirled around the park, and passed an appropriations was called superintendent), Captain Moses Harris, wrote bill that did not provide any money for salaries of the that “by the use of an organized and disciplined force, superintendent and his assistants. Without these funds, respect for the established rules and regulations and the the Interior Department was forced to request that the rights of life and property can be maintained,” and he U.S. Army take over administration of the park. On believed this had been proven by the improved state of August 6, 1886, Secretary of the Interior Lucius Lamar, the park’s affairs during his tenure.3 Second, the military, under the authority of the Sundry Civil Appropriations with more manpower, could achieve a parkwide pres- Act of March 3, 1883, wrote Secretary of War William C. ence. Anywhere from 34 to 136 men—a considerable Endicott, requesting a detail of troops to aid in protecting increase over the handful of assistant superintendents Yellowstone from vandals and poachers who were kill- on the payroll during previous administrations—were ing the game and destroying the park’s natural features. now stationed in the park at any given time. Third, the Three days later, Lieutenant General Philip H. Sheridan military already commanded respect from both Congress recommended to Endicott that Troop “M,” First U.S. and park visitors. Finally, while not all military superin- Cavalry, stationed at Fort Custer, Montana Territory, tendents were equally successful, most were at least good be ordered to the park under the command of Captain managers of people. Thus outfitted, the military was in Moses Harris.2 Thus began three decades of military a good position to fight vandalism, to build the park’s control of Yellowstone National Park. While there were administrative infrastructure, and to adopt the sorts of some setbacks throughout the period of army control, wildlife and tourist management policies necessary to the military succeeded to a large extent in protecting the ensure success. park’s natural curiosities and much of its wildlife (albeit

The War on Vandalism 25 The Acting Superintendents most capable officers to manage its affairs.” Born in 1849, on a New Jersey homestead, Anderson graduated All that said, Captain Harris still had a tough as- fifth in his class from the U.S. Military Academy in 1871, signment. The park faced many threats, especially after and was assigned to the Sixth U.S. Cavalry as a second repeal of the act that had provided for enforcement of the lieutenant. He distinguished himself at every turn during park’s rules under Wyoming law; vandalism, poaching, a career of challenging assignments that included serving and arson had subsequently increased.4 By all accounts, as an acting engineer officer for the Department of the however, Harris was up to the job. According to historian Missouri (1875), as assistant professor of natural and Aubrey Haines, Harris “brought to the assignment the experimental philosophy at West Point (1877–1881), as courage, integrity, and common sense that were needed U.S. Army captain (1885–1915), and as commissioner to rescue the park from a difficult situation.” Little is for a detail that took him to Europe (1889). Haines wrote known about Harris’s life prior to his enlistment in the that Anderson’s experience and training as an officer, his U.S. Cavalry in 1857, but his record as a military figure European experience (which helped him to develop “his revealed his abilities. He rose quickly through the ranks, social graces”), and his “commanding physical appear- received the Congressional Medal of Honor, and was ance” all contributed to his success in the park. “His made captain in 1864.5 Harris brought the qualities that was a vigorous administration,” Haines concluded, one had helped him succeed in the military to his post in “that left the Park in very good order at the time of his the park. Considered “austere, correct, unyielding and transfer to other service on June 23, 1897.”10 a terror to evil doers,” Harris was able, nevertheless, to Lieutenant Colonel Samuel Baldwin Mark (S. B. appear fair, reasoned, and judicious.6 He was, moreover, M.) Young came to Yellowstone from Yosemite National a consummate diplomat, possessed of an ability to get Park, where he had served as acting superintendent and, along with the Department of the Interior. Senator like Harris, posed “a terror to local wrongdoers,” accord- George Vest called Harris “a gentleman of intelligence ing to Haines. Born in 1840, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and justice and high character.”7 Harris’s annual reports Young enlisted as a private just two weeks after the Civil demonstrated both a deep appreciation for the park and War began. He also rose quickly through the ranks to a philosophy about how best to preserve it that echoed brigadier general by the war’s end, and was “brevetted that of the Holman Select Committee. “In my opinion,” three times for gallant and meritorious service in action.” he wrote in 1887, “this ‘wonderland’ should for all time After the war, his achievements continued until he be- be kept as nearly as possible in its natural and primitive came lieutenant colonel in the Fourth U.S. Cavalry. A condition. No appliances of art and no expenditure of “large, blunt, rather positive man,” according to Haines, money can improve upon this condition.”8 who “knew exactly what he was about all the time,” Harris’s successor, Captain Frazier Augustus Young oversaw a successful, albeit short, administration Boutelle, was not blessed with Harris’s temperate quali- of the park.11 Divided between two brief periods, Young’s ties, especially when it came to diplomacy. Born in 1840, stint in Yellowstone ran from June to November 1897, in Troy, New York, Boutelle also joined the military with and then again from June 1907 to November 1908. the outbreak of the Civil War. He, too, rose to the rank If Young’s administration was short, so were the of captain, and was cited for meritorious conduct dur- administrations of his four successors: James Brailsford ing the Indian Wars. But controversy, not competence, Erwin (November 1897–March 1899), Wilber Elliott marked Boutelle’s brief assignment in the park, which Wilder (March–June 1899), Oscar James Brown (June began on June 1, 1889. According to Haines, “impolitic 1899–July 1900), and George William Goode (July actions” were at issue; Boutelle criticized the secretary of 1900–May 1901). While these men had distinguished the interior for failing to provide firefighting equipment military careers, their tenures as acting superintendent in the park, and was resented for his opposition to the were too short to have had much impact. Incompetence proposed installation of an elevator in the Grand Canyon was not the issue. Rather, circumstances surrounding of the Yellowstone River.9 the country’s foreign affairs, in particular the Span- Boutelle was replaced on February 16, 1891, by ish–American War and the military’s expanding role Captain George Smith Anderson. The first West Point in the Philippine Islands, led to troop displacements graduate to hold the park’s acting superintendent posi- throughout the military establishment. Unfortunately, tion, Anderson was, according to Haines, “one of the the park’s interests were not served by this constant

26 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” shuffling of acting superintendents; as the troop com- to locate the structures near the hotel or the approaches manders changed, so did the troops. Hence, there was to the Mammoth Hot Springs formations. Instead, he little continuity at any level of park management.12 had selected a site on the west side of the road about two Stability returned to the park in May 1901, when hundred yards south of the house recently occupied by Yellowstone’s ninth military officer to serve as acting su- former superintendent Wear, and about one half-mile perintendent, Colonel John Pitcher, arrived in the park.13 from the hotel, where the buildings “would not be visible Born in Texas in September 1854, Pitcher entered the from the ‘hotel terrace,’” nor “obstruct either the view U.S. Military Academy in 1872, and became a second or approaches to the Hot Spring formation.”17 In this lieutenant upon graduation. His time in the military was latter assessment, Harris was wrong; surely, he could have spent in campaigns fighting American Indians and Fili- seen that the new Camp Sheridan buildings were to be pinos. Pitcher, according to Haines, was blessed with fa- situated right at Marble Terrace.18 vorable conditions in and around the park during his six Camp Sheridan, named for General Philip H. years in office. Pitcher’s “tour of duty . . . correspond[ed] Sheridan, was soon turned into adequate temporary with the golden years of the military administration,” quarters. By the end of 1886, Harris’s troops had erected Haines wrote. “[T]hat aura,” he concluded, “probably several frame structures—a 10' high, T-shaped barracks was due as much to the coincidence of many favorable (130' × 24', with a 55' × 18' extension), a 10' high, 100' factors as it was to his efforts.” Pitcher’s tenure as acting × 24' storehouse, a 10' high, 26' x 20' guardhouse, a superintendent came to an end in July 1907, when he 10' high, 150' × 26' cavalry stable, a 10' high, 50' × 25' was transferred to another post.14 quartermaster’s stable, and a hospital—all clad in vertical board and batten.19 Although the army’s quartermaster general was nominally responsible for the construction Military Infrastructure of army installations at the time, this was not the case at Camp Sheridan, probably because it was a small, tem- The military years saw the construction of two porary post. Instead, Harris supervised the work done forts: a temporary one, Camp Sheridan, and one built at the fort.20 By 1887, he had received funding for con- to last and still standing today, Fort Yellowstone, as well struction of a headquarters office and a double cottage as numerous outposts, called “snowshoe cabins.” Both for officers’ quarters. Until that time, officers had been the forts and the outposts provided the necessary infra- living in two structures built by the Department of the structure for waging war against vandalism. Interior: Philetus Norris’s 1879 blockhouse on “Capitol Upon their arrival in the park on August 17, Hill,” and a frame cottage, described by Harris as being 1886, Captain Harris and his 50 soldiers established a “considerably out of repair, small and uncomfortable.”21 tent camp at the base of the terraces at Mammoth Hot Edwin C. Mason, acting inspector general of the army, Springs. On September 16 of that year, Captain Harris believed that because the buildings were owned by the was allotted $3,000 to construct barracks for his troops Interior Department rather than the War Department, in the Mammoth area. Ever vigilant as self-appointed the army could not repair them.22 Constructed of rough park protector, Arnold Hague reminded Acting Secretary lumber “with battened outside,” all of the newly built of the Interior H. L. Muldrow that “great care should structures at Camp Sheridan were “covered with a wash be exercised in the selection of the proper site and no of lime and lamp black to improve as far as practicable buildings should be allowed to be erected at the springs their rough appearance.”23 While their roughness was without the approval of the Department of the Interior hard to conceal, they looked, as Mason reported, “neat who still has the maintenance of the Park in their charge.” and comfortable.”24 By 1888, a stone magazine, an Hague feared that the number of buildings and stables amusement room, and several unidentified buildings required for the troops could “easily cause irreparable in- had been added to Camp Sheridan.25 jury to the formation unless carefully chosen.”15 Shortly Because Harris viewed the arrangement whereby thereafter, Muldrow requested that Captain Harris sub- the military managed the park to be temporary, his mit his list of building sites to the Department of the estimations of appropriations were always made with Interior for approval, and advised him against selecting that in mind. When he completed his first annual a site on the “hotel terraces” or near “any object or place report and figured the appropriations required for the of curiosity.”16 Harris responded that he did not intend next fiscal year, he assumed, for example, “that the civil

The War on Vandalism 27 NPS

Camp Sheridan, ca. 1900.

administration of the affairs of the Park would be con- plans to erect buildings in the park for a permanent tinued” the next year.26 He therefore included a request post. While this move might seem to have alleviated the for $32,300, for salaries for one superintendent, one problem of troop discomfort, and to some extent resolved gamekeeper, ten assistant superintendents, one chief the question of whether or not the military occupation of police, twenty policemen, and one clerk.27 Likewise, was temporary, it raised an equally vexing question: who when he prepared to leave the park in the hands of a really controlled the park? When, in October 1890, offi- successor in 1889, he prepared a budget for the return cials at the Department of the Interior learned of the War of civilian leadership.28 Department’s plans to develop a permanent post, they During his administration, Harris found this tem- immediately ordered Boutelle not to permit any work porary and uncertain arrangement for managing the park to proceed on the buildings without first submitting “an increasingly troublesome. In his annual report for 1889, accurate description of the locality and grounds whose Harris wrote that the uncertainty associated with the occupation is contemplated, with your own report as situation precluded “the establishment of a military post to the eligibility of the same” to the Department of the . . . of sufficient capacity for a garrison large enough to Interior for approval.30 The War Department had been perform the duties of Park protection well and efficiently put on notice: the Interior Department was still, at least without risking any impairment of military efficiency on paper, in charge of the park. in the force so employed.” The troops, he pointed out, What kind of structures did the Department of War were overextended by a situation that “necessitate[d] the envision for the park? The designs they chose said a lot employment of temporary and less-effective means with about their plans to stay or to go. From correspondence a maximum of discomfort to the troops so employed.” between the Office of the Chief Quartermaster and the He referred to the situation as “an exceedingly anomalous Quartermaster General in Washington, D.C., it is clear condition of affairs which ought not to prevail indefi- that the army intended to build “good, permanent and nitely and as a matter of course.” The authorities, Harris durable buildings.” But the chief quartermaster obviously believed, should resolve the situation immediately. “The had more than permanence on his mind when he asked time would seem to be fully ripe for definite settlement to see the intended plans. He also advocated planning of the question as to the means to be employed in the for the expansion of the Yellowstone post: “As this Park protection and government of the National Park,” he embraces quite a vast area in a section of country that wrote, inviting resolution of the matter, “and as my con- is rapidly becoming settled, and is being visited by an nection with the Park ceases with the rendition of this increased number of tourists each year, it is thought to report, I deem it a suitable time to urgently invite your be the intention to provide buildings of a substantial attention to the importance of this subject.”29 character, and place them in a manner to admit of the By the time Harris’s replacement, Captain F. A. proper location of others, which may be required in the Boutelle, arrived, the War Department had developed future, in order to shelter additional Troops necessary in

28 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #30980

Fort Yellowstone. 1897. protecting the public interests in this park.”31 in February 1891, that construction began.36 The fort In January 1891, Brigadier General Thomas Ruger, was officially established on May 11, 1891; construction Commander of the Department of Dakotas Headquar- of the approved buildings began that summer.37 ters, recommended that the secretary of war request the Before construction began, Anderson asked First Interior Department to sanction a tract of land for use Lieutenant George H. Sands to investigate the site. Sands by the military.32 “The tract should,” he wrote, “. . . be confirmed that it was the “proper place for permanent somewhat larger than that merely required for placing military quarters.”38 Sands’s opinion, however, stood the buildings near each other in regular order, owing to in stark contrast to that of one U.S. Geological Survey the fact that hollow spaces exist in places below the crust employee, who “advised against the site, since it was deposits of the surface formation in the park, and it may, located on an old formation of the hot springs, which in consequence, be necessary to scatter the buildings was perhaps not stable enough to support heavy build- somewhat, depending upon experimental tests for foun- ings—” just as Ruger had worried.39 dations.” Like the chief quartermaster, Ruger wanted to By autumn 1891, these concerns had been put maintain the option of adding more buildings at a later aside, and a total of twelve buildings had been con- date, to accommodate the structural needs of possibly structed on the site chosen by Boutelle, located “on the larger future troop deployments.33 eastern edge of the terrace, northeast of Capitol Hill and The War Department also wanted permission to a short distance from the tourist facilities, about three- use and control the waters of Clematis Creek as a water tenths of a mile northeast of Camp Sheridan.”40 Several supply for the garrison. The army planned to dam the buildings were ready for occupancy in November of that creek and construct underground water pipes, and then year: an administration building, two duplexes of officers’ to maintain control of the creek and adjacent land so as quarters, a guard house, a barracks capable of housing to guard against pollution of the creek. Finally, the War 60 soldiers, a commissary storehouse, a quartermaster Department would need permission to “procure, in the storehouse, a granary, a bakery, a stable, and two non- vicinity, such materials, lumber, logs, rock, limestone, commissioned officers’ quarters. sand, etc.,— as may be required in the construction of The design of these early buildings, according to the buildings.”34 The following month, Interior Secretary historic preservationists R. Laurie Simmons and Thomas John W. Noble granted permission.35 H. Simmons, was “typical of western military posts of While Boutelle was instrumental in choosing the the era, [being] of a generally spartan appearance with site for what was to become Fort Yellowstone, he did a few Queen Anne Style domestic elements, described not remain in the park long enough to see any actual by many as ‘cottage style.’” The structures were one-to- construction on the project. Plans and estimates were two-and-a-half stories high, of “frame construction with well underway when he managed the park, but it was not drop siding and stone foundations, with evenly spaced until after he was replaced by Captain George Anderson double-hung sash windows, and prominent porches.”

The War on Vandalism 29 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #11497

Officers’ Row. 1896.

The guard house had “sweeping eaves and tiny cupolas, staying on the job and in the house for 40 years, until which would be repeated in later buildings.” The build- June 1935.45 At roughly the same time, construction ings for the noncommissioned officers “were similar began on the jail at Mammoth Hot Springs. in appearance to middle class houses built across the By the middle of the 1890s, the issue of the fort’s country during the late Victorian era, and were notable size still had not been resolved. In April 1894, Captain for their columned porches with decorative friezes and Anderson continued to appeal for funds to construct balustrades, shingled gable ends, hipped roof dormers, more facilities for his troops. Noting in a letter to the and large paired windows.”41 Many of these buildings adjutant general that army management had “proven so are still standing today. generally satisfactory that a return to the old Civil Gov- These additions to the new Fort Yellowstone ernment [was] not at all probable,” he asked permission pleased Anderson. “The post makes a sightly and at- to vacate the unsuitable, temporary structures at Camp tractive addition to the place,” he wrote in his annual Sheridan and build quarters near the new post, Fort Yel- report in August 1892. The one drawback was its small lowstone. The distance between the two sites, particularly size. Anderson wanted more buildings for the company, during long winters, proved to be a disadvantage, he Troop D of the Sixth Cavalry, that had arrived in May wrote. Citing lack of funds, the adjutant general refused to help manage the park.42 Until the new barracks were this request.46 finally constructed in 1897, these soldiers summered in By 1897, the War Department’s attitude had the Lower Geyser Basin and wintered in the old barracks changed, and the additional barracks (to house the of Camp Sheridan.43 second detachment detailed to Yellowstone) became a By July 1893, Fort Yellowstone had acquired a reality. Colonel S. B. M. Young, acting superintendent hospital, a residence for hospital personnel, and a large at the time, oversaw the contract negotiation and the hayshed. In 1894, the park acquired its first stone struc- construction, but left the park shortly thereafter, in ture to house the U.S. Commissioner called for by the November 1897. Along with new barracks came the Yellowstone Game Protection Act, or “Lacey Act,” which concomitant housing needed for commanders: two had officially placed the park under federal jurisdiction duplex officers’ quarters and two noncommissioned and finally created a way for park personnel to arrest officers’ quarters. An additional stable, a post exchange, law breakers and bring them to trial. The building was and various service buildings were also added. The frame “a one-and-a-half-story sandstone dwelling with gable- structures resembled the earlier post buildings, and were on-hip roof with through-the-cornice dormers and a equally characteristic of the time. The barracks, for full-width columned porch.” Its design was “restrained example, had a “hipped roof with flared eaves which and dignified,” according to Simmons and Simmons.44 sheltered a full-width wrap-around porch, . . . multiple John W. Meldrum served as the first U.S. Commissioner, hipped roof dormers, and . . . alternating brick chimneys

30 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #36806 and cupolas.”47 Little construction took place at the post during the next four years, as acting superintendents came and went. With the exception of a small morgue built near the hospital (both since demolished), no buildings were constructed during this period. In 1899, Captain Oscar Brown proposed adding an entrance gate and station house at the North Entrance. Captain Wilder, Brown claimed, had argued for the addition of these structures in a report written to the department on April 19, 1899. The interior secretary, however, did not approve the $1,200 Brown thought he would need for the project.48 Brown also sought funds to build four-and-one-half miles of fencing along the northern boundary near Gar- diner, Montana, in hopes of protecting the winter range of antelope and mountain sheep and keeping the town’s horses and cattle from entering the park.49 When Captain John Pitcher took over as acting superintendent in April 1901, construction of adminis- trative facilities resumed. Pitcher found Fort Yellowstone to be “one of the most neatly built and attractive-looking little posts in the country,” but like those before him, he Hiram Chittenden. 1910. found it “too small for the growing needs of the park.” He recommended that the fort be enlarged to accommodate a squadron, and called for the construction of a house posal, and he “often could, if he were interested, stretch for the commanding officer (acting superintendent) his responsibilities to include undertakings that at most suitable for entertaining the park’s many distinguished posts would be done under the quartermaster’s direc- visitors.50 Even if he did not achieve all he wanted in tion.” Chittenden “was just such a man.”51 Chittenden’s this arena, Pitcher accomplished a great deal over the good relationship with Pitcher, his creation of a new next few years. water system and reservoir, and his enterprising, creative With the help of Engineer Officer Hiram Chit- genius helped him add significantly to the improvement tenden from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who and attractiveness of the headquarters area.52 Chittenden had served in the park under Captain Anderson, Captain recognized and appreciated the mark he left on the park, Pitcher oversaw the construction of many of the Mam- but his ambivalence toward “improving” the park was moth-area features we recognize today: the landscaped evident in his writing: he had transformed nature out and improved plateau known as the parade ground, the of necessity, he maintained, and thus had tried to strike office of the Army Corps of Engineers (known as the an appropriate architectural tone. “This [the Mammoth “pagoda”), and the North Entrance arch (a.k.a. Roosevelt area] is the only point in the Park where an extensive arch), through which many of Yellowstone’s millions of transformation of natural conditions by the work of man visitors have entered Wonderland. has been permitted,” he wrote of the headquarters area Construction of buildings was within the purview in his 1905 history of the park. “Yet it was unavoidable of the construction quartermaster (with input from here, and in yielding to this necessity,” he argued, “the the acting superintendents), so it was unusual for an effort has been made to provide a substitute that would engineer officer, whose duties since the 1883 Civil Ap- be in harmony with the natural surroundings, and would propriations Bill had centered around the construction be in itself a feature of interest.”53 of roads and bridges, to be associated with the creation In the very dry summer of 1901, a lack of water at of administrative properties. But as David G. Battle and headquarters for both the hotel and the fort prompted Erwin N. Thompson pointed out, “the engineer officer Chittenden to construct a 1.8-million-gallon reservoir, had considerable funds, equipment, and labor” at his dis- complete with a ditch connecting Glen Creek to a

The War on Vandalism 31 reservoir below Marble Terrace, and to pipes connected Mammoth promoted a good growth of turf, and park to the existing system. This system made the Mammoth officials planted more shrubbery. Pitcher believed that Hot Springs plateau irrigable, and added permanence to within two years, the turf would have a sufficient hold the headquarters area. Chittenden suggested construct- to decrease the necessary amount of irrigation water.63 ing “proper sidewalks” to complement the rebuilt and These improvements in landscaping were made possible realigned roads at headquarters.54 Colonel Young had by the reservoir and water system that the Army Corps been hesitant to improve the plateau, as the area was of Engineers had begun to develop under Chittenden in just outside the military’s grounds at Mammoth, but 1901, which provided “adequate water for all the domes- with Chittenden’s return to the park in 1899, and a tic needs of the fort and the concessioners, with water to landscape plan that had been produced pro bono by spare for irrigation and power generation.”64 Massachusetts landscape architect Warren H. Manning, Power generation was exactly what Chittenden work began on the improvement of the plateau.55 As next addressed. Using overflow from the reservoir and historian Linda Flint McClelland has noted, there was water from the hot springs at Mammoth, he constructed a movement in landscape architecture at the end of the a water-powered electric light plant—with a capacity of nineteenth century to “conceal construction scars, to 100 kilowatts—approximately 300 yards from the fort. blend built structures with natural vegetation, and to He called this new powerhouse “in every particular first screen undesirable objects from view.”56 Manning, who class and as good as any in the United States for its size.” was part of that movement, may have had such motives Upon its completion in 1902, the fort was converted in mind when he drew up plans for the parade ground. from oil to electricity, which added measurably to the However, it was not part of Manning’s approach, at appearance of the headquarters area.65 this time, to restrict designs to the use of indigenous Another of Chittenden’s projects was the U.S. plants. Thus, lawn and shade trees—even, as Haines Engineer’s Office—a distinguished, resilient build- noted, “extensive groves and semiformal walks to scenic ing that exemplified the attractive pragmatism of the points”—were part of Manning’s plan, which formed military’s involvement in the park. Chittenden chose the the basis for future work, but was never fully executed.57 site—north of the plateau and the army post—where the The actual results were scaled down to fit budgetary and handsome structure still stands today. This second stone environmental constraints. building to be built in the park (the U.S. Commissioner’s In 1902, Chittenden followed through with his house/office, constructed in 1894, had been the first) plans to improve the plateau directly in front of officers’ was designed by the firm of Reed and Stem of St. Paul, row and the concession area. According to Battle and Minnesota, and built of gray sandstone with “distinc- Thompson, he “realigned the roads, laid 8,337 feet of tive green roof tiles and . . . bellcast eaves [that] lent the concrete sidewalk . . . , developed a series of irrigation design an exotic appearance, earning it the nickname ‘the ditches and water sprinklers for both the plateau and Pagoda.’”66 The engineer’s residence, a frame structure the post itself and cleared the debris from about 40 behind the office, was also built at this time.67 acres of ground,” which was then graded, enhanced The year 1903 also saw the construction of another with manure and loam, and seeded with grass.58 Shade Yellowstone mainstay: the masonry arch at the park’s trees were planted, some in the fall of 1902, and the North Entrance. The North Entrance had become very rest in the spring of 1903.59 The residence and barn of important after the Northern Pacific Railroad extended well-known Yellowstone photographer Frank J. Haynes, its park branch line to Cinnabar, Montana (a few miles which were located on the plateau, were moved in 1902, north of the railroad’s eventual terminus in Gardiner), in with Haynes’s cooperation, adding to the improved ap- 1883. Furthermore, Mammoth Hot Springs had become pearance of the headquarters.60 Chittenden supervised ever more firmly established as the business and admin- improvement of the area around the officers’ quarters and istrative headquarters of the park. Thus, Chittenden and barracks, as well; lawns were planted and ditches were Pitcher thought it “fitting . . . to provide some suitable dug for the maintenance of shade trees.61 According to entrance gate at this point.” According to Chittenden, in Major Pitcher, the newly planted lawns at Mammoth his report to the chief engineer on the “Improvement of did much to control the blowing sand and dust that Yellowstone National Park” for 1903, a suitable entrance had previously been a source of much complaint in the would also spruce up an otherwise drab part of the park. Mammoth area.62 By 1904, the irrigated grounds at The arch was important, wrote Chittenden, “because

32 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #79 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #43656

President Theodore Roosevelt laying the cornerstone at the dedication of the arch. 1903. The Roosevelt Arch. 1905. the natural features of the country at this portion of the The arch cut an impressive figure against the stark boundary are about the least interesting of any part of the backdrop of the sagebrush flats. Chittenden and Pitcher Park, and the first impression of visitors upon entering softened this effect somewhat by tinkering with the arch’s the Park was very unfavorable.”68 immediate environment. Wing walls extended to the Once completed, the arch certainly gave visitors the park’s boundary, and a “small park [was] laid out within feeling of entering a different space, even if the country [the] loop at [the] terminus of [the] Government road.” on both sides remained the same. Constructed of co- “Arch Park” was fenced and “ornamented with [a] small lumnar basalt—what Chittenden called “lava rock”—the pond provided with running water.” Officials seeded the arch bears part of the park’s original mandate, “For the park and planted trees. Furthermore, the road from the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People,” spelled out on a arch “to the bluffs of the Gardiner [sic] River [was] newly tablet above the keystone, and the words “Yellowstone built over an even plain, . . . planted with shrubbery on National Park,” and “Created by Act of Congress, March both sides.”72 “The whole effect,” wrote Chittenden in 1, 1872” on tablets on either side of the opening.69 his report to Brigadier General G. L. Gillespie, “[was] President Theodore Roosevelt was present on April 24, to give a dignified and pleasing entrance to the Park at 1903, at the Masonic ceremony held to dedicate the the point where the great majority of visitors enter[ed] arch and lay the cornerstone. He gave a rousing speech it.”73 lauding the beauty and democratic nature of the “great During the summer of 1904, the “barren and national playground,” and reminded the audience and unsightly waste” flat area in front of Gardiner and at the country that the preservation of such a treasure was the park’s North Entrance (referred to today as “the in their hands. “The only way that the people as a whole triangle”) was transformed into “a beautiful green field.” can secure to themselves and their children the enjoy- Pitcher thought it presented “a very pleasing picture to ment in perpetuity of what the Yellowstone Park has to the tourists as they enter the park.” Under Chittenden’s give,” he warned, “is by assuming the ownership in the direction, the 50-acre field, fertilized with manure, was name of the nation and jealously safeguarding and pre- planted in alfalfa, and plans were made to erect a strong serving the scenery, the forests, and the wild creatures.”70 fence nearby to store food for winter use by antelope The arch was completed in August 1903, and relatively and other game animals, if needed. Chittenden thought quickly after that, it began to be referred to by many as the field would yield 100 to 200 tons of hay. The main the Roosevelt Arch.71 ditch, built in 1903 to bring water from the Gardner

The War on Vandalism 33 River to the field, was enlarged in 1904. Chittenden at- argued. The problem was that additional troops would tributed the heavy cost of the ditch work to constructing require additional quarters. Pitcher was aware that the an escape ditch for storm and snow water to prevent the existing fort had been designed to allow for expansion, destruction of the alfalfa field. The escape ditch carried and that “the plans for the necessary buildings [were] the water around and beyond the railroad station, built on file in the War Department.” He tied his request for beyond the Roosevelt Arch, releasing it in the valley more space to issues of aesthetics and national pride. below. Chittenden’s estimate of costs for the fieldwork “This post is seen and visited by many distinguished during 1904 was $2,100.74 people from all over the world,” he wrote, “and for this To improve the arch area further, six of twelve reason, if for none other, it should be made a model post sequoia trees shipped to the park by the Interior Depart- in every way.”79 There were other reasons, of course, to ment, “with a view to their propagation in the park,” expand the post: the protection of the park depended on were planted near the arch in 1905. Pitcher believed the military’s being able to use as many men as possible that if the park were “successful in growing these trees, to police the territory, and four troops were better than they [would] in the future be a matter of great interest to three. Also, the army would benefit, as better military in- the tourists.”75 The recent creation of Sequoia National struction could take place “in and about the post, which Park in 1890—a spot where tourists gathered just to would be of benefit to the men, and also give our many admire the great trees—was undoubtedly the incentive visitors some idea of what is being done in the Army in behind this experiment. Pitcher’s interest in transplant- the way of drill and instruction.”80 ing sequoias to the Yellowstone area was also in keeping Pitcher’s request was not granted immediately, with landscape designers’ ideas at the turn of the century. causing him to repeat his complaint and concomitant While the sequoia was not native to Yellowstone, it was request for additional housing for troops throughout his an indigenous American species, and the idea of propa- last three years as acting superintendent. In his annual gating native American species—as opposed to exotic report for 1905, for example, he advised the secretary species from overseas—was popular at the end of the of war that when the fort was established in 1892, there nineteenth century.76 It would be another three decades were about 4,000 visitors, in contrast to the more than before park officials realized that species not native to 26,000 visitors counted that year. The population of the region did not belong in a national park. Pitcher’s the surrounding region had also increased dramatically, sequoia experiment failed; while native to America, the and the army’s protection and conservation activities species could not adapt to the Yellowstone area’s arid had grown. Finally, he directed the secretary’s attention conditions. Much to Pitcher’s chagrin, and despite great to the fact that since 1903, the army’s board of general efforts and a professional gardener who followed all officers, the commanding general of his department, the instructions attached to the trees, the twelve small and the chief of the general staff (in 1904) had all sequoias died.77 recommended the enlargement of Fort Yellowstone.81 To learn more about the region’s weather, the chief Unfortunately, Pitcher would leave the park before his of the U.S. Weather Bureau, Professor Willis L. Moore, wish was granted. suggested that a weather station be established on Capi- Between 1903 and 1905, additional structures were tol Hill at Mammoth Hot Springs, with a substation at built in the park; they were just not the ones Pitcher Lake. Pitcher readily agreed. In 1903, a “handsome frame was looking for. In 1903, the U.S. Fish Commission building” was constructed between two other newly built constructed “a small frame building at the West Thumb structures: the Army Corps of Engineers’ office and the of the Yellowstone Lake, for the purpose of eyeing the Yellowstone Park Transportation Company’s stables. The eggs of the black-spotted [cutthroat] trout.”82 In 1904 weather station was used for several decades.78 and 1905, a new post exchange was built to replace the By 1904, the issue of the fort’s size had arisen old one, which was deemed too small by Pitcher and the again. For Pitcher, the fort was just too small to be both various inspectors general who had visited the post over comfortable and functional. It “was built and equipped,” the years.83 This new post exchange was well-built, and he lamented to the secretary of the interior, “for the included a much-needed gymnasium and library, even if accommodation of two troops of cavalry, but it is now the inspector general who saw it under construction was garrisoned by three.” The park required the manpower disappointed that it was not “a more splendid structure of three garrisons, and really should have four, Pitcher built of stone.”84 The assistant adjutant general from the

34 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #30416

Fort Yellowstone Post Exchange. 1917.

U.S. Army Headquarters Department of Dakota in St. the 1890s and 1900s,” the report continued, “so were Paul, Minnesota, agreed: “It is respectfully submitted,” the architects who designed them for the Army and the he wrote to Pitcher, “that at this station, the one which members of congress who appropriated funds for their is probably seen by more foreigners than any other, save, construction.”87 The exchange was one story, with a perhaps, West Point, a more dignified shelter for the raised brick foundation and frame, lap-sided walls, and troops of the country would be in better keeping with a wooden-shingled, hipped roof. Its T-shaped plan al- the hundreds of thousands of dollars which are annu- lowed for a rear wing that housed the gymnasium. The ally spent on the improvement of the park.” Specifically, most prominent feature of the building, according to he regretted that the new post exchange was of frame Battle and Thompson, whose study of the fort buildings construction. “This seems to me to be a mistake,” he serves as the leading reference on the subject, is “a colon- equivocated, “with good stone for building purposes naded entrance portico centered on the east elevation. within reasonable distance.”85 His disappointment was in The pediment of this portico,” they continued, “was keeping with the War Department’s notion of the norma- covered with wood shingles, with a circular window tive nature of structures built at military posts. Already centered on it.”88 “[b]y 1893,” wrote the authors of the Context Study of As the authors noted, the post exchange was an the United States Quartermaster General Standardized important building for the troops stationed in Yel- Plans, 1866–1942, “the Secretary of War noted that in lowstone during the area’s long winters.89 The facility ‘all posts which give the promise of permanency it has provided a welcome source of entertainment and relax- been the aim of the Department to construct buildings ation during what must have been a difficult period of of brick, stone, or other enduring material and of solid privation. But if the life of a soldier stationed at the fort workmanship.’”86 While not built entirely of stone, the carried with it particular challenges, so did the life of a exchange was of solid enough workmanship to last for soldier stationed in one of the many outposts scattered more than a century. Visitors can still see it today when throughout the park. they tour Fort Yellowstone. The exchange’s design, consistent with other post architecture of the time, was Colonial Revival, a style Soldier Stations and Snowshoe Cabins that, as the Context Study explained, was popular “as a wave of patriotism, combined with an increasingly Even with the presence of Camp Sheridan, and mature national awareness and a desire to return to the later, Fort Yellowstone, it would have been impossible ‘good old days’ swept the country.” Just as “the middle for the army to police the park effectively without a class was attracted to Colonial Revival buildings, new in system of outposts built throughout Yellowstone. Work

The War on Vandalism 35 on constructing this additional protective front began in the back-country was practicable.”94 Indeed, after during Superintendent Patrick Conger’s tenure, but did Wilson’s experience, soldiers used these early stations not proceed in earnest until the army took control of and the later snowshoe cabins year-round as bases for the park and began building, throughout the park, a backcountry excursions. system of soldier stations and snowshoe cabins—named By the fall of 1890, Harris’s replacement, Captain so after the snowshoes (actually long wooden skis) that F. A. Boutelle, had plans to extend the outpost system soldiers and guides wore to maneuver through snow. by building additional cabins where necessary. He envi- Soldier stations were manned year-round, while snow- sioned a series of cabins from which soldiers could pursue shoe cabins were used only by soldiers on patrol. These their efforts to protect park resources. Indeed, Boutelle cabins were built about ten miles, or a day’s trek, from was responsible for creating the network of snowshoe one another throughout the park, which allowed soldiers cabins found throughout the park today. Interior Sec- to cover quite a bit of territory without having to carry retary Noble approved the building of six additional too much gear. cabins, but authorized Boutelle to spend no more than Within a couple of weeks of arriving in the park, $100 on each one.95 In a decision that would come Captain Moses Harris began work on a system of pro- back to haunt the department, Noble denied Boutelle’s tective measures still in use today: year-round, regular request for $75 for sleeping bags, on the grounds that patrols from outposts throughout the park. Harris they were too expensive. He asked Boutelle to look into immediately stationed detachments at all of the sites purchasing ones that would “answer the purpose” for that former Superintendent Wear’s assistants had occu- “considerably less.”96 pied—Norris Geyser Basin, the Lower Geyser Basin, the Shortly after Boutelle was replaced by Captain Upper Geyser Basin, the Lower Falls of the Yellowstone, Anderson on February 15, 1891, President Benjamin Riverside, and Soda Butte on the Cooke City Road.90 Harrison set aside the nation’s first timber reserve, the While bad weather forced Harris to withdraw most of his Yellowstone Timber Land Reserve, a large area that men to Camp Sheridan during that first winter (the men wrapped around part of the park and extended 25 miles stationed at Soda Butte remained at their post), he very to the east and 8 miles to the south. Because Anderson soon established a winter-use program for the cabins. bore responsibility for providing the same protection Similar to park rangers today, Harris’s men sta- for this new reserve as he did for the park, he felt it was tioned at these outposts received orders to protect the important to establish a new outpost near the park’s park, its wildlife, and its visitors. In his annual report for southern boundary, close to the junction of the Lewis 1887, Harris reported that the troops at the detached and Snake rivers. The park’s large elk herds, and the stations had been instructed not only to enforce all rules increase in settlements near Jackson, Wyoming, and and regulations of the Department of the Interior, but Henry’s Lake, Idaho, also influenced his decision. An- also “to discover and prevent the spread of forest fires, derson sent a crew to the area during the spring of 1892, to protect visitors to the Park from any abuse or extor- to build a “hut” (a regular station) and stables at Polecat tion by stage drivers or other persons, and generally to Creek, just south of the park boundary, and to supply preserve respect for law and order.” 91 the station with sufficient hay for use during the winter To help him and his men negotiate the unknown of 1892–1893.97 In his report of 1892, Anderson men- territory of the park, Harris used one of his predecessor’s tioned that he would keep the station at Polecat Creek assistants as a scout and guide. He had wanted to hire “garrisoned by a dismounted party, with snowshoes, all three guides—C. J. Baronett, William McClellan, and winter,” because, as he put it, he “fully realize[d] that Edward Wilson—but received the authority and fund- poaching in that vicinity need[ed] increased attention.” ing, in 1886, to hire only one at a time.92 First, Harris He also mentioned that he had added an outpost at hired C. J. “Jack” Baronett. When Baronett resigned in West Thumb and a year-round station in the Riverside the summer of 1887, Harris hired Edward Wilson, whose area.98 “zealous and untiring . . . discharge of his duties” greatly Despite the army’s efforts to stop poaching, the impressed all the acting superintendents with whom he slaughter of game persisted. The problem was not nec- worked until his suicide in July 1891.93 According to essarily the number of outposts, or the number of men Haines, Wilson “made the first winter patrol for protec- stationed at them; rather, it was finding the right men tive purposes (1888), thereby proving that winter travel for the job. “My great trouble,” Anderson wrote, “is to

36 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” get uncommissioned officers to put in charge of [the exposure to heat and to cold, much snowshoe work in soldiers] who are able and disposed to cope with the class winter, and the incurring of many dangers,” a “better of men who form the poaching population. . . . I need class of soldiers” was drawn to the station life, Anderson at least two more scouts for this purpose.”99 The use of reported, and they were eager to apply for “this sort of scouts—men experienced in the ways of the mountains service.” Anderson recognized that it was the “freedom and familiar with poachers—was essential to the success and the ease of the life that [made] this duty very popu- of the snowshoe cabins as protective devices. As Haines lar.”104 That same year, Anderson added one station for wrote, “The scouts passed along the lore of their way winter use by one sergeant and three men near the Mud of life, the use of skis, how to dress and what to carry Volcano area. “The object of this new station,” he ex- on patrols, where to travel and what to look for, and, plained, “was the protection of the bison that winter in occasionally, how to get out of a tight scrape.” Haines the Hayden Valley.”105 believed that these scouts were essentially training “a Anderson also received authorization in 1895 to nucleus of rangers for the civilian National Park Service use park appropriations for “improvement in the employ- when it took over administration from the army.”100 ment of additional scouts.” This approval may have been Indeed, regular soldiers on duty at headquarters the result of Anderson’s increasing impatience with the sometimes lacked necessary preparation for their mission. lack of funds available for administration and protection For example, in 1899, when a lieutenant colonel of the of the park. Since the failure of Congress to appropriate Sixth Cavalry visited the fort as acting inspector general, funds for the administration of the park in 1886, acting he noticed that “a number of the men, particularly the superintendents were only allowed to expend incoming recruits, need[ed] . . . more of the individual [cavalry] lease revenues. In 1894, Anderson was allowed, as he put drill.” The officer attributed this need for remedial it, “the munificent sum of $250,” which was nearly all work to “the nature of the duties at this post, and the used for cleaning up trash and other detritus left behind limited time for instruction, . . .” and recommended by roadside campers. He even had had to use his own that, “as far as practicable, only well instructed men be funds to pay for his soldiers’ meals, because both the assigned to the troop at this post.” While they were on War Department and the Department of the Interior the whole good men, he noted, they were rather young refused to approve funding. Anderson placed the blame and inexperienced.101 squarely on the shoulders of the Interior Department, In his annual report for 1894, Captain Anderson as the expense “was incurred in the proper ‘manage- greatly regretted that he did not have the manpower to ment’ of the Park,” even if, as the department argued, protect the park and the new timber reserve and still the “bills were incurred by people in military service.” have his men “perform all of their ordinary military “A consequence of such [Department of the Interior] duties.” He also decried the fact that he still had only rulings,” Anderson seethed, “must be to dishearten and one citizen scout to aid in all this protective work. He discourage any superintendent, who, no matter what his felt that a station near the mouth of Thorofare (then enthusiasm may be, will naturally feel averse to paying “Thoroughfare”) Creek would be a great help in this a tax on his own efficiency.”106 effort, but didn’t feel it was feasible at the time due to By 1897, visitation to the park, which had been his limited personnel and the site’s long distance from down for several years due to the 1893 depression and the supply source at Mammoth Hot Springs.102 Remote- railroad strikes, increased again, and all of the troops ness was also a problem with the outpost on the Snake were kept on the park’s main roads to prevent traffic River, which had proven less successful than Anderson accidents. The increase in visitors prompted Colonel had hoped. “It is too far away to be easy of supervision,” Young, Anderson’s successor, to ask for one additional he wrote. “It is located in a part of the country much troop of cavalry or one company of infantry. Because the frequented by hunting parties, and the section under its army ignored this request, Young had to abandon “two protection is too extended and too rough to permit very important summer outposts.”107 Luckily, the fire threat effective scrutiny.”103 was not high during the 1897 season. In a letter to the By 1895, things had improved, and Anderson interior secretary that July, Young asked for money to was well pleased with the park’s system of outposts and construct three additional outpost cabins, some tempo- the work done by the men stationed at them. While rary shacks for snowshoe parties, and provision boxes the work was hard, “involving much riding in summer, for the temporary shacks.108

The War on Vandalism 37 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #22735 Despite the continued lack of staff, Young made at least one major contribution to the station system: he instituted a method of recordkeeping for each of the outposts, a tradition still in place today. Soldiers were required to keep a logbook with an accounting of the day’s events, including numbers of miles traveled; num- bers of men used; destination of travel; type of travel (snowshoes, skis, horseback or foot); number, location and kind of game seen; and weather statistics. They then had to compile and send to headquarters a monthly re- port based upon this accumulated data.109 Furthermore, Young gave his men instructions regarding use and care of the snowshoe cabins: Norris Soldier Station, pre-1908. All persons are enjoined to use the rations in the snowshoe cabins only in case of necessity; never under any circumstances to waste any of them secretary for an additional $1,912.50, “these sections and to always to leave the cabins and their con- where there is much game must be protected by the de- tents secure and in good condition. The ax and tachments from Riverside and Snake River, respectively, shovel must be left inside, the comforts hanged which are too distant to do this efficiently.”113 In the [sic] up, the cooking utensils left clean and dry meantime, he was able to “modify dispositions” some- and the food in its box secure from mice, etc. what for the winter of 1899 by “abandoning the Thumb Enough dry wood for one night should always and Upper Geyser Basin as stations [and] changing the be left in the cabin.110 number of men at others.” Furthermore, he intended to “establish within a few days [of writing his report] a Young’s successor, Captain Erwin, lauded the new station about 10 miles northeast of [Mammoth], protective system put in place by his predecessors. “The on the east side of the Yellowstone River, to cover what system of enforcing [the rules and regulations] by means is known as the Hellroaring country.”114 of soldiers stationed at nearly regular distances on the To facilitate patrolling from these well-spaced sta- usually traveled routes, and who patrol these routes . . . tions, “a number of snowshoe cabins [were] constructed and . . . who are always present at the most interesting at about a day’s trip apart.” According to Brown, these points, preventing their desecration and the destruc- snowshoe cabins and the supplies they contained—“a tion of the natural phenomena, has been established small amount of food . . . together with bedding, fuel, for some years, and no better could be devised,” he matches, cooking utensils, etc.”—were indispensable. wrote in his 1898 annual report. Soldiers also recorded Without them, as he put it, “trips of only one day at a information about visitors to the park.111 Such records time, or at most only two or three days, could be made helped the administration to track and monitor tourists’ from permanent stations, as the travel has to be made on movements. skees [sic], . . . and such short scouts would leave a large In 1899, nine stations were in use (at Norris Gey- part of the game country entirely unprotected.”115 ser Basin; the Lower Geyser Basin; the Upper Geyser Patrolling the park from these outposts—stations Basin; West Thumb; Lake Station, near the Lake Hotel; and cabins alike—differed markedly depending on the the Grand Canyon; Soda Butte; Riverside; and Snake season. In the summer, anywhere from three to ten River).112 Captain Brown, who replaced Captain Wilder enlisted men and one noncommissioned officer were (who had replaced Erwin), proposed adding two more: positioned at each station. During these busy tourist one “in the extreme northwestern corner of the park” months, they patrolled primarily along the park’s main (what would become Gallatin Station in 1910), “and roads. During fall and winter, the number of men at each the other in the southwest corner” (what would become station varied, as did the areas they patrolled. Brown Bechler River Station in 1910). “Under the present noted that “frequent trips” were made from the stations conditions,” he argued in his proposal to the interior and cabins “by small detachments, accompanied by the

38 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” civilian scouts”; there were “from two to four of these assistance to visitors no matter which acting superinten- parties out continually during the hunting season.” They dent was in office. Goode advocated providing “suitable scouted areas “where the game usually range[d] and quarters” for scouts at Fort Yellowstone and the Lower where the poaching would most probably be done.”116 Geyser Basin, and dividing the park into districts “to According to Brown’s “Instructions for winter patrol- be constantly patrolled . . . after the manner of game ling,” which included a list of snowshoe cabins used at wardens.”119 the time, soldiers were supposed to take certain routes When Captain Pitcher replaced Goode as acting into the country around their cabins on a regular basis, superintendent in May 1901, he and Chief Engineer so as to patrol the park effectively. By 1900, there were Chittenden, whose men also used the stations, recom- 21 cabins, including the following: Coulter Creek Cabin, mended enlarging and improving them to be “as neat and Boundary Creek Cabin, Lewis River Cabin, Park Point comfortable as possible.” These changes were necessary, Cabin, Astringent Creek Cabin, Proposition Creek Pitcher wrote, “for the men who occupy them suffer Cabin, Trappers Creek Cabin, Trout Creek Cabin, many hardships, especially during the winter, when they Willow Creek Cabin, Hellroaring Creek Cabin, and are entirely cut off from the outside world for several Bartlett Cabin.117 months.”120 Pitcher and Chittenden also recommended Captain G. W. Goode, who replaced Brown in July adding stations so the total number was “12, and possibly 1900, decided to retain use of the Thumb station late 13.” At $2,000 each, including outhouses, and consider- into the fall, to monitor hunting parties returning from ing the substantial distances across which many of the the Jackson Hole area, and to cover the areas thought building supplies would have to be transported, Chit- critical by Brown by putting a “detachment with a ci- tenden figured that the project would cost $25,000.121 vilian scout at Knowles cabin [near Crevice Creek] to But a shortage of carpenters during the following year watch the Hellroaring country, and have the southwest prevented any major improvements to the stations, and corner of the reservation frequently scouted from the without authorization to enlarge stations and add new Snake River station during the fall and winter.” Like ones, Chittenden’s men could do little more than repair Brown, Goode found the cabins highly useful: “they the present station houses, which they did between 1901 are most effective as a means of protection during the and 1903. In 1902, Chittenden’s men tore down the fall and winter,” he wrote, “the scouts being enabled to soldier station on the Snake River and removed it “to a cover practically the entire reservation and penetrate point where the road crosses the boundary of the park.”122 to localities which would otherwise be inaccessible at a In 1903, Chittenden wrote that a new station house and time when poachers are at work.” In his recommenda- stable would be built at Gardiner before the end of the tions, Goode made a strong case for the stations Brown year.123 He also told Pitcher in September of that year had wanted, plus some others. His proposal included that in 1904, he would erect “three good buildings at a station near the southwest corner of the park (on the Tower Falls, and one in the Gibbon Canon.”124 Bechler River), one at the southeast corner (on Thorofare Three new station houses were built in 1904 and Creek), one near the northwest corner (on the Gallatin early 1905: one at the Thumb of Yellowstone Lake, one River or Fan Creek), one where the southern boundary east of Sylvan Pass on the East Entrance road, and one crosses the Snake River—“present Snake River station at Soda Butte, along with an officer’s “dog house” and to be abandoned,” he wrote—and one at the town of barn. Chittenden had planned to build the Soda Butte Gardiner, Montana.118 station nearer to Cooke City, Montana, before the snow Goode appreciated the contributions made by closed down operations for the year, but did not.125 His civilian scouts—“their work, in conjunction with that men also constructed “small quarters for officers’ use” of the local magistrate, has been . . . the salvation of the at eleven of the stations.126 game,” he wrote—and he recommended increasing their When the inspector from the Adjutant General’s number to ten. These civilian scouts “know the country Office visited Yellowstone in September 1904, he recom- and are trained woodsmen in all seasons,” he reasoned, mended rebuilding the post’s sheds and corrals “in a neat “whereas the soldier, as a rule, is replaced before he has and substantial manner, suitable to the surroundings,” time to become proficient in such duties.” In essence, and reserving a small amount of money “to improve Goode argued for a permanent force of expert park the interior finish [of the patrol stations] and render the employees who could enforce the rules and provide lodges cheerful in winter.” The inspector maintained

The War on Vandalism 39 that the men who lived in the stations were “isolated running over the formations.” “The Company should for at least six months in the year, and [therefore] extra have a herder with them at all times,” he wrote that allowance should be made for their comfort and content- July.129 Because the problem remained unresolved in ment.”127 In September 1905, an inspector again noted 1886, Harris chose to act. “I have . . . found it necessary some deficiencies in the stations: the station at the Upper to forbid the turning loose of stock to graze in the vicinity Geyser Basin had a latrine and bathroom built out over of the Hot Springs and Geyser formations,” he wrote in the same stream from which, just 50 yards below, the his first annual report. “This practice,” he added, “was men procured their drinking and cooking water. There not only a source of annoyance to visitors, but of much was also a problem with the water supply at the Tower injury to the formations.”130 Fall station, and because the structure there was old, Of course, Harris had more to worry about than with a dirt roof, the inspector recommended building just free-roaming stock when it came to the defacement another station where there was more water. He also of thermal features. Tourists, in search of souvenirs and recommended extending telephone lines to every sta- a “good time,” habitually marred the park’s curiosities. tion, and had one final complaint: “The enlisted men Harris had little patience with these “shallow-minded on patrol duty along the roads wear shirts and no coats visitors” who took pleasure in etching their names into while on said duty.” In the days before a cooler summer the formations, and broke off pieces to take home. wardrobe was added to the uniforms of military officials, “It may be said without exaggeration,” he reported in this complaint proved difficult to remedy.128 1886, “that not one of the notable geyser formations in the Park has escaped mutilation or defacement in some form.” Another favorite pastime of offenders was Wildlife Policy and Tourist disrupting eruptions of the geysers by throwing sticks, Management logs, and other debris into them.131 “Nothing short of the arrest and expulsion from the Park of a number of During the twenty-odd years this chapter covers, these offenders, who have the outward appearance of acting superintendents enforced a number of policies, ladies and gentlemen, will probably be effectual to stop including those passed down from the Department of the practice,” Harris lamented in 1887.132 the Interior and Congress and those of their own making In fact, arrest and expulsion was the only recourse with respect to wildlife, fire, and visitor management. available to Harris and his troops for these and other These policies affected both the natural and the built offenses in those days prior to the Lacey Act, and Har- environment as small steps were taken toward providing ris relied on the practice as “indispensable to the proper better public access to sites so visitors could appreciate protection of life and property.”133 He felt it was effective the park’s unique features. For example, additional trails to have “some punishment, or at least inconvenience,” and comfort facilities were built during this time, as follow any violation of the rules and regulations, and were a fish hatchery, enclosures for game animals, and faithfully attempted to make those rules and regulations informative signs. Finally, active management of the park known. “By a liberal distribution and posting of the began, as the acting superintendents undertook control published rules and regulations and by timely admoni- of both a rudimentary budget and a vital force of men tion and warning,” he wrote in 1889, “it has been the in charge of protecting the park and its visitors. endeavor to prevent the commission of offenses rather While decisions regarding wildlife and tourist than to seek opportunities to inflict penalties.”134 management and a public access infrastructure took With the Lacey Act still seven years away, Harris longer to evolve, protective policies affecting the park’s pleaded for “an established form of government for the thermal features were developed right away. For example, Park,” with “such legislation as shall define the juris- one of the first decisions Captain Harris made was to diction of the Territorial courts within the Park, so as forbid free-roaming livestock in the park, as the danger to permit the same powers which they now have with that livestock posed to thermal features had been evident reference to other reservations, and the enactment of as early as 1883, when John Dean, an assistant superin- a stringent law for the protection of [for example] the tendent to Patrick Conger, had observed that the “cattle game.”135 Harris did not benefit from such legislation belonging to the Park Improvement Company [were] while he was acting superintendent, and he regretted it: giving much trouble and doing considerable damage by “The inadequacy of mere rules and regulations, unsup-

40 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” ported by any appearance of force or penalties for their to purchase bison and place them in the park as part infraction soon become apparent,” he declared, “and of an effort to conserve the quickly disappearing spe- there has been hardly a report rendered relating to the cies, he declined, replying: “It is not the policy of the Park during the 18 years of its existence in which the government to endeavor to make this Park attractive, by necessity of some further provision of law for its preserva- making a collection of domesticated animals, but rather tion and government has not been urged.”136 to preserve the reservation in its natural condition and In addition to “some definite and well-consid- to promote the existing game animals so that they may ered scheme of government,” Harris also wanted more breed in security.”143 troops.137 This appeal was answered in July 1888, by Harris was so successful in deploying troops to Secretary of War Endicott. Beginning that summer, protect the park that by the end of his tenure as act- an additional company of soldiers, the Twenty-second ing superintendent in 1889, the park had a system of Infantry, under the command of Second Lieutenant T. well-equipped and well-mounted patrols to protect its M. Moody, were on duty in the geyser basins and other wonders and wildlife. At one point, a visiting Harvard points throughout the park. Harris told the secretary of scientist, Charles Sargent, complimented the military the interior that the additional force would “greatly facili- presence and suggested that “the guardianship of all the tate the enforcement of the established rules and regula- nation’s forests should be confined to the Army and that tions” in areas of the park “previously unguarded.”138 forestry should be taught at West Point.”144 Troops patrolling the park and stationed at the When Captain Boutelle took over from Harris, he outposts were responsible for many tasks. Protecting the found the park in good order. “Harris’s management has park from vandalism was just part of their regimen. They left matters in the Park in so healthy a condition that little also had to watch out for fire and poachers, and were trouble is apprehended in its government,” he wrote in responsible for a rudimentary form of wildlife manage- his “Supplemental Report” in the summer of 1889. Be- ment. As Haines noted, the military officers in charge of cause the winter snowfall had been light, and the spring the park’s welfare around the turn of the century became early and dry, Boutelle’s immediate concern was a lack of actively involved in “The Yellowstone Crusade,” the “new firefighting equipment. Boutelle maintained that a raging policy of absolute protection of the Park’s wildlife.”139 fire could wreak havoc on a watershed and resulting water The acting superintendents were largely responsible for flow to the surrounding area, and he feared the worst. He this crusade. Historian Paul Schullery has acknowledged was also concerned about potential harm to the beauty that several were conservation-minded, noting that of the park. Accordingly, Boutelle sought an appropria- some “were made honorary members of the Boone and tion to cover the cost of clearing all downed timber at Crockett Club and became eloquent spokesmen for the least 100 yards from either side of the roads and trails. conservation movement.”140 He also advocated the creation of a system of regularly Harris’s interpretation of the policy of “absolute controlled camp sites located at intervals of a few miles. protection” amounted to feeding elk along the roadways These, he felt, would facilitate regular patrols and make and instigating close observation of buffalo “for several it easy to ensure that campfires were extinguished. His years to determine with any certainty the number of wishlist also included two additional water wagons, more these animals, [and] whether or not they are diminish- rubber buckets, axes, and shovels.145 ing in numbers.”141 Unlike his successors, Harris did not Unfortunately, Boutelle did not receive the extra include a predator control component in his approach. equipment he needed in time. After a private citizen paid While he believed there were animals “not worthy of $40 for the purchase of rubber buckets—“Would that protection, chief among which is the skunk,” Harris did Congress would take such an interest in the protection not succumb to popular worries that carnivores were of the Park before it is too late,” Boutelle chided in his decimating the park’s herds of elk or bison. “[T]he fears annual report for 1890—Boutelle pressed his request for of those who think the game animals may be extermi- “two tanks and the necessary number of draught animals nated by the carnivora may be considered as without for the transportation of water.” “Congress should deal present foundation,” he wrote in 1888.142 generously with [the park],” he wrote. “Language and Harris also did not favor the introduction of art have so far failed to properly paint the beauty of the wildlife to the park, even with the goal of augmenting Grand Canon,” he reminded the secretary of the inte- its diminishing numbers of bison. When he was invited rior; “a single fire would seriously mar its grandeur by

The War on Vandalism 41 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #1659

Soldiers with captured poacher Ed Howell and Howell’s dog. 1894.

destroying its fringe of forest.”146 When Boutelle looked While Boutelle’s plan to reduce predator numbers at a forest, he saw a water storage system. For him, the was quashed, his interest in capturing wild animals for forest fire that wiped out timber spelled drought to all human viewing and enjoyment bore fruit—though not those “dependent upon a generous flow of the streams in the way he intended. During the fall of 1890, Secre- after the cessation of spring rains.”147 Hence, Boutelle tary of the Smithsonian Institution Samuel P. Langley desired to expand the system of snowshoe cabins for fire took up correspondence with Interior Secretary Noble control as well as protection from poaching. about the prospect of supplying animals from Yellow- If Harris’s position on wildlife management favored stone National Park to the National Zoological Park in the “preservation” aspect of the park’s mandate, Boutelle’s Washington, D.C. Noble asked Boutelle to carry out position was strong on the “enjoyment” angle. With just the plan of sending animals forthwith. “I may add,” a small appropriation, for instance, Boutelle felt he could Noble penned to Boutelle, “that it is in my opinion a erect a roadside enclosure for elk, deer, and antelope, most desirable thing to do for the good of the people to be viewed by passing visitors. “The only expense and one in which I shall take great pleasure in having attending [the animals’] support,” he wrote, “would be hearty co-operation in.” He would, he wrote, supply a little hay for winter.”148 In 1890, to offset the game’s monies from the contingency fund to offset any hard- habit of seeking “the high points during the fly season,” ship incurred in the capture and transfer of the animals. he proposed an elk enclosure on Swan Lake Flat, and a “This will accomplish one of the purposes for which bison enclosure in Hayden Valley so that “all [tourists] the Yellowstone Park was established,” he concluded.153 may at least see a sample.”149 Boutelle also believed that Indeed, supplying animals for distant zoos was part of predator populations should be reduced by extermina- what historian James Pritchard referred to as “the older tion, and sought permission from the secretary of the natural history approach to understanding wildlife in interior for his troops to take part in an extermination the park.” The practice of supplying “excess” animals to plan.150 “While they [predators] may be something of a zoos, and for restocking range outside the Yellowstone curiosity to visitors,” he wrote, “I hardly think them an region, was continued until well after the National Park agreeable surprise.”151 Secretary Noble opposed Boutelle’s Service was established in 1916.154 plan to kill predators: “Upon further reflection, I have Another proposal of Boutelle’s, and one upon to say that I deem the killing of animals of any kind, which he acted very soon after arriving in the park, was whether savage or others, in the Park, will be a step in the introduction of non-native fish into park waters. the wrong direction. You are directed not to permit the Boutelle’s plan received a favorable response from Colo- same under any circumstances,” he wrote to Boutelle in nel Marshall McDonald of the U.S. Fish Commission. August 1890.152 In his history of the park, Haines wrote that McDonald’s

42 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #36953

Bison heads confiscated from poacher Ed Howell. 1894.

“interest in Boutelle’s proposal stemmed from his fledg- dealing with problems as they arose in the park. “The ling organization’s need of a proper outdoor laboratory most embarrassing features of Park administration,” he in which to exercise its science.” McDonald was inter- wrote just after taking office, “appear to be the want of ested in developing “a sport fishery in what was then the any law except such as is vested in the Secretary of the only area of wild land under federal management.”155 Interior in establishing rules and regulations.” Boutelle Boutelle’s mission was very similar: he wanted to improve complained that this rendered the superintendent un- fishing within the park and throughout the region fed by able to distinguish legally between offenses as diverse as the waters originating in the park. Thus, in addition to “breaking a small piece off a formation” and “carrying the possibility of “pleasure-seekers”’ being able to enjoy away a tourist’s trunk.” Boutelle had no suggestions at fishing “within a few rods of any hotel or camp,” Boutelle that time to remedy the situation; he merely wanted to believed that “the stocking of these waters [would] add “suggest that something should be done.”159 In the fol- vastly to the breeding-grounds of the tributaries of the lowing year, he recommended that Congress provide a Missouri and Snake Rivers and add immeasurably to the civil commissioner “before whom . . . lawbreakers may food supply obtained from those waters.”156 be brought and properly punished.”160 Colonel McDonald began his fish-stocking project When Captain George Anderson came on duty in almost immediately. Seven thousand young, non-na- February 1891, he encountered the same troubles Har- tive trout were put in the west and middle forks of the ris and Boutelle had experienced: tourists continued to Gardner River above Osprey Falls, the Firehole River deface thermal features and disrupt geysers, poaching above Kepler Cascades, and in the Gibbon River above remained an issue, and there was still no framework Virginia Cascade.157 By the end of July 1890, McDonald within which to deal satisfactorily with legal issues. By hoped to have 150,000 trout and salmon planted in the the time Anderson left, however, two of those three park’s rivers and lakes. An eager angler himself, Boutelle problems were resolved. appreciated having park waters stocked with fish. It was In his first report, Anderson complained bitterly “very desirable that all waters of this pleasuring ground about tourist vandalism. “The most ceaseless vigilance is for the people should be so filled with fish that all who needed to prevent tourists from mutilating the beautiful come may enjoy the sport,” he wrote.158 formations in the Park,” he declared. “I do not believe,” One area of wildlife policy upon which Boutelle he quipped, “10,000 men could entirely accomplish and Harris agreed was the need for legislation supporting it.” While the ladies were the most notorious specimen enforcement of the park’s rules and regulations. As Harris hunters, according to Anderson, men had a bad habit of had before him, Boutelle chastised the Department of their own, namely “the persistence with which [they] will the Interior for failing to create a legal framework for write their unlovely names on everything that is beautiful

The War on Vandalism 43 within their reach. This form of barbarism is confined for tourists.165 Because he had received some money almost entirely to men, and, if we may judge from the for enclosures ($300 in 1892), he drew up plans for a writing, to the boorish and illiterate.”161 more elaborate structure and asked Secretary Noble for To deal with poaching, Anderson wanted to additional funds.166 The acting secretary of the interior prohibit firearms completely within the park, “leaving apparently thought the price tag for this new enclosure with the superintendent the right to make carefully too high, however, and in 1894, Anderson reported that considered exceptions.” He also made no secret of his “nothing would probably be done in the matter.”167 frustration about the lack of legislation to back the park’s Corralling some animals for viewing and sending rules. “It is a serious matter that so simple and much- others off to zoos were not ways to guarantee the con- needed a statute as the one granting legal force to park tinued well-being of native species, and it was not long regulations can not be passed,” he complained. “It can before Anderson realized that the park’s bison herd was antagonize no interests,” he reasoned, “except those of in danger. In 1892, he acknowledged the difficulty of the poachers, with whom no friend of the park can have preserving their numbers, but promised to “devote my sympathy.”162 best energies to it.”168 According to his reckoning, the The law for which Anderson and others had clam- herd had numbered about 400 until 1894, when, as he ored for so long finally came about due to a poaching put it, the animals had “been more carefully watched scandal that forced Congress’s hand. In March 1894, the and more accurately counted than ever before,” and “fortunate capture” of notorious poacher and scofflaw only numbered about 200.169 When their population Ed Howell, whose numbers of illegal takings were enor- had not apparently increased in the following year, An- mous, brought the poaching issue to the front pages of derson proposed to spend $3,000 in appropriations to newspapers and to the attention of the American people. construct an enclosure and feed as many bison as could As Anderson noted in his annual report for 1894, the be driven into it during the upcoming winter. In this “feeling aroused in the minds of the public by [Howell’s] way, Anderson believed that the park would be able to act[s] of vandalism stirred Congress to prompt action, “retain a small herd and keep them nearly in a state of so that on May 7 an act for the protection of game in nature.”170 This plan failed, however, when gamekeep- the Park received the President’s signature.” The Lacey ers failed to capture the few animals that entered the Act, named for Iowa Representative John F. Lacey, cre- enclosure as they waited for more to arrive. ated the framework necessary for punishing poachers. By 1896, Anderson’s optimism about the bison had As Anderson noted, the Howell affair was, in one sense, waned dramatically. He was only able to ascertain the “the most fortunate thing that ever happened to the existence of “25 or 30, and possibly 50.” His chances Park, for it was surely the means of securing a law so of saving the herd, he lamented, were doubtful. “The much needed and so long overdue.”163 The Lacey Act forces of nature and the hands of man are alike against made illegal “all hunting, or the killing, wounding, or them,” he wrote sadly, “and they seem to be struggling capturing at any time of any bird or wild animal, except against an almost certain fate.”171 In addition, poachers dangerous animals, when it is necessary to prevent them continued to take bison scalps as quarry, speeding the from destroying human life or inflicting an injury.” It population’s decline. But with the conviction of some also authorized punishment for other crimes committed poachers in 1896, Anderson felt better. “The effect of in the park and gave exclusive jurisdiction of the park to these trials and convictions has been most salutary,” he the United States. Thus, 22 years after the park’s creation, wrote, “and depredations will hereafter be less numer- the secretary of the interior was finally able to publish ous. . . . Poachers will be more cautious in the future, as rules and regulations with legal backing.164 they are well aware that they will not again escape with Anderson continued Boutelle’s policy of supplying so slight a punishment.”172 animals for the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. In While bison numbers dwindled, the introduc- 1894, however, after passage of the Lacey Act, he stopped tion of non-native fish, especially trout, into the park’s shipment temporarily, awaiting authorization from the streams, rivers, and lakes was, according to Anderson, Interior Department to continue—authorization he an unmitigated success. Over the course of his tenure received shortly thereafter. While animals were await- as acting superintendent, Anderson requested that more ing shipment to the nation’s capital, Anderson noted, fish be introduced, or “planted.” In particular, he desired they provided a great source of interest and enjoyment to see black bass introduced into some of the park’s lakes.

44 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Although several attempts were made, none succeeded. “These patrols continue on their way until they meet The non-native trout did take, however, and as Anderson similar patrols from the neighboring station, when, after reported in 1894, it was “the general verdict of all who a short halt, they retrace their steps in the afternoon to have fished here that no better fishing can be found their own proper home.” By the middle of the season in anywhere in the world.” Until 1895, Anderson did not 1895, soldiers had arrested numerous violators of the rule advocate any restrictions on fishing, which he felt was to extinguish all fires, and with the force of law behind “sufficiently limited by climatic conditions.”173 That year, them, officials made twelve convictions. Anderson cited however, he proposed to limit the minimum length of the thoroughness of his system as the source of these trout caught to six inches.174 The size restrictions ap- good results.179 peared in the Instructions to Persons Traveling Through Acting superintendents Young, Erwin, Wilder, Yellowstone National Park printed in 1897: “All fish less Brown, and Goode also made policy decisions that af- than 6 inches in length should at once be returned to fected carnivores, aquatic fauna, and bison in the park, the water, with the least damage possible to the fish,” and they, too, were appalled by tourists’ penchant for the rules read. Also, anglers were instructed to collect no defacing park property. Colonel Young, for example, more fish than they needed for food.175 noted in 1897 that visitors seemed to suffer from a The introduction of fish into the park’s waters “mania for carving and writing names on guard rails, might have led to good fishing, but not all have agreed benches, etc., placed for the safety and convenience of over time that the program was a “success,” or even a good visitors.” “It is contemplated,” he wrote wryly, “to erect idea. While it would be some years before park officials a large bulletin board for the convenience of visitors next began to see the fish planting program as a problem, it is season affected with this insane passion, with columns now clear to historians and ecologists that the program, for name and address, and a heading, ‘All fools and idiots as Haines put it, was “not well coordinated and [was] required to register here only.’”180 . . . ill-conceived, if not [indiscriminate]—particularly With respect to predators, Colonel Young believed the introduction of exotics at the expense of native that coyotes were especially destructive of young ante- species.” Haines referred to much of the program as lope, and he thus advocated poisoning them. With this “an impairment that must now be corrected through move, he acted against the better judgment of “a few selective fishing.”176 In his environmental history of friends of the park,” who contended that “if the coyote Yellowstone, Paul Schullery wrote that “[t]he ‘Johnny is exterminated the gopher in time would eradicate the Appleseed’ mentality of many land users, whether grass from the winter valley ranges.” “I do not concur in managers or the public, has done irreparable harm to this opinion,” Young retorted, “and, request authority native landscapes.” “Aquatic ecosystems,” he continued, to reduce the number [of coyotes] so that they will not “are exceptionally vulnerable to invasions of nonnative hunt in packs.”181 Captains Erwin, Brown, Goode, and species.”177 Schullery added that these early efforts on Pitcher agreed with this policy. By 1904, Pitcher also the part of “park enthusiasts for recreational fishing re- believed it was necessary to exterminate cougars from the sulted in the serious alteration of the fauna of many of park; in that year alone, fifteen were killed.182 Of the next Yellowstone’s watersheds[:] the native fish populations year, Pitcher wrote that carnivores such as “mountain were disastrously damaged by overharvest and by the lions, lynx, and coyotes” were “destroyed whenever the introduction of nonnative species; [and] some native opportunity affords.” As he put it, predator control was species were extirpated.”178 “a matter of business and not of sport.” Only scouts and Anderson shared Boutelle’s concern for protect- “certain good shots among the soldiers” were allowed ing the park from fires, and ordered that patrols leave to conduct the killing. Pitcher did not favor providing regularly from cabins and stations to check for signs of a general permit to kill predators, believing it “would conflagration. “The system of daily patrols from my result in endless trouble in the matter of protection of numerous outposts has done much to prevent fires,” other game.”183 he proclaimed in 1895. “My rule is to have a man start Young and his immediate successors also supported every morning from each of these stations, carrying with the non-native fish introductions. In fact, Young and him a bucket and a shovel with which to thoroughly Erwin suggested that a fish hatchery be built in the extinguish any smoldering embers that may be found park, and a few government men be trained in artificial in the abandoned camps of tourists,” he explained. propagation of trout.184 This view was not shared by the

The War on Vandalism 45 U.S. Fish Commission, but Erwin persisted. He believed was convinced that genetics were the problem, and that the park’s position as a “reservoir drained by the recommended purchasing a few good bulls “to prevent principal rivers of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans,” made the extermination of this herd from the evils of inbreed- it “the most appropriate and suitable place in the United ing.”191 In 1901, Captain Pitcher echoed Erwin’s call for States” for a hatchery. As his predecessors had done, new blood. He also guessed that the herd consisted of Erwin called for adequate appropriations to maintain no more than 25 animals, and advocated starting a new the park both as a “pleasuring ground” for tourists and herd and keeping it corralled, “turning the animals loose as source and supply of “natural phenomena.” It “will gradually as the herd increase[d].”192 be seen,” he wrote: Congress provided $15,000—half of what Pitcher estimated he would need—for the purchase of 30 to 60 that the park as a game and fish preserve has not bison and the construction of an appropriate enclosure its equal in the world; the variety is great, and it for them.193 This enclosure was larger and more substan- is eminently fitted to sustain this variety under tial than the one Anderson had envisioned. Furthermore, the protection of the Government. An increase Interior Secretary F. A. Hitchcock created the position of in appropriation means an increase in the means park gamekeeper, and in July 1902, the post was filled and facilities of protection, and as a national by Charles J. “Buffalo” Jones, a “crotchety” sort who got game preserve, which not only holds secure the along well with Pitcher in the beginning, but ended up remaining wild animals and game birds of this alienating him and others before resigning in September country, but enables them to breed and mul- 1905.194 While they were still on good terms, Jones and tiply, thus supplying the needs of neighboring Pitcher set up a spot for the corral close to Mammoth States, it is deserving of an increased fund for Hot Springs, and purchased 15 to 18 cows from the this purpose.185 Allard herd of Flathead Agency in Montana, and three bulls from the Goodnight herd of Texas. They also built With the fish planting program well underway, a smaller corral near Pelican Creek, where the calves of calls for a hatchery continued. Finally, in 1902, “a fish the wild herd could mingle with purchased animals. egg collection station was authorized.”186 While the Pitcher believed it would be necessary to familiarize the head of the U.S. Fish Hatchery in Spearfish, South bison with humans so they did not flee the park when Dakota, selected a site on “Willow Creek” (today’s the summer season arrived. He also wanted to “feed and Obsidian Creek) for the park’s first hatchery, the West handle the new herd of buffalo in the same manner that Thumb site (mentioned earlier) was chosen instead.187 domestic cattle are handled in this country,” he wrote, D. C. Booth, superintendent of this fisheries station for “and before turning them loose to brand them ‘U.S.’ in the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, reported great success at such a way that they can always be identified as United collecting eggs, shipping them elsewhere—even as far States property.”195 as North Wales—and planting fry. In 1906, Captain By 1904, the new herd of bison numbered 39, Pitcher oversaw improvements at the U.S. Bureau of and by 1906, 57. In that year, the young bison were Fisheries buildings and grounds at West Thumb. The moved to a spot on the Lamar River (at the mouth of hatchery building got new windows, a cornice, and cedar Rose Creek), where it was possible to raise hay and keep shingle siding, which was left to weather while the trim them until, as Pitcher put it, “they have become thoroly was painted white. A log cottage and barn were also built [sic] at home.” “After this has been accomplished,” he on the premises.188 continued, “they will be gradually turned loose, and it is While the park’s exotic fish thrived, its native bison believed that they will not wander far from the haystack teetered on the brink of extinction. By 1897, the popu- which will at all times be kept on hand ready to be fed lation had dwindled to around 24.189 Publicly, Second out to them.” The older bison would remain at Mam- Lieutenant Elmer Lindsley, who was in charge of the out- moth, and in this way the herds would be divided “so posts and scouting duties during that period, hoped that that in case of sickness or disease of any kind in either with the poaching under control, bison numbers could band it would not necessarily be communicated to the increase. Privately, he remained skeptical. “Whether they other.” Pitcher had a log cabin built for the gamekeeper will still decrease on account of natural causes only time at the Lamar River site, and a roughly one-square-mile can tell,” he reported.190 Acting Superintendent Erwin parcel of “fine grazing land” enclosed for the bison.196

46 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #27190 prohibited “the interference with or molestation of bear or any other wild game in the park, etc.” It also forbade feeding bears “except at regular garbage piles.” Pitcher wanted these prohibitions incorporated into the park’s regulations so that violators could be brought before the U.S. Commissioner assigned to the park.200

A Public-Access Infrastructure

As it turned out, acting superintendents and their troops had more to manage than animals. It was becom- Antelope feeding in hay field on Gardiner Flats. 1904. ing increasingly clear that managing people—and their garbage—was a full-time job. In 1887, for example, Captain Harris asked Congress for money to clean up the Thus began what would come to be known as the Lamar park. Whenever he could justify it, he told the secretary Buffalo Ranch. of the interior, he ordered his troops to clean up the The idea of feeding game animals was not new. geyser and hot-springs grounds, roadsides, and camping Harris had entertained it, as had other acting superinten- grounds, but he acknowledged that these acts were “a dents. By 1906, several species were being fed artificially, labor of love,” rather than part of his men’s official du- especially during the winter. An alfalfa field at the North ties.201 The modest sums he requested ($3,000 in 1887 Entrance, for example, was, according to Pitcher, the and 1888) were not asking too much, he asserted: “No salvation of the antelope herd.197 In conjunction with other public pleasuring ground . . . of ever so humble the alfalfa field, Pitcher had a four-mile-long wire fence a character, is maintained without the expenditure of a erected along the park’s northern boundary to keep an- dollar for decency’s sake,” he chided in 1888. “Eminent telope in and domestic stock out.198 Deer and mountain men from all parts of the civilized world, scholars, law sheep were also fed. Pitcher thought it not unusual or makers, divines, and soldiers come here, attracted by even logically inconsistent to feed wild animals in this the fame of this land of wonders, and by the invitation way. In fact, he thought it perfectly within the purview implied in its dedication as a National Park, to have their of park policy. “In order to be successful in keeping wild senses offended and their enjoyment of nature’s most game on any reserve,” he wrote in 1905, “it is absolutely wonderful and beautiful gifts destroyed by the presence necessary either to preserve their natural feed . . . or to of unsightly filth and rubbish.”202 Funds for such pur- supply them with hay. . . . [E]ven where the natural sup- poses, however, had not been granted since 1886, and ply of feed is preserved it is well to have a supply of hay would not be forthcoming for several more years. on hand, in order to help out the weaker animals each Harris also wanted to improve information dis- spring . . . when the old grass is nearly all gone and before semination—in particular, to provide sign boards warn- the new grass is ready for use. . . .” Another benefit of ing park visitors about dangerous places, and displaying this policy, according to Pitcher, was its effect on animal the names of geysers and other points of interest. He behavior around humans: “[the feeding] has rendered unsuccessfully requested appropriations for this purpose them exceedingly tame and caused them to recognize and “generally to keep in order and in a decent condition man as their friend instead of an enemy,” he wrote.199 this large reservation which has been by law declared ‘a Pitcher did not favor close relations between all pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the animals and humans, however. He found the situation people.’” at the hotels and camping sites where bears lingered, Harris’s men also had to protect tourists from the waiting to be fed, very dangerous. “It is a difficult mat- twin perils of park tourism: the fickle forces of nature ter to make some of the tourists realize that the bear in and commerce. Tourist numbers grew markedly during the park are wild,” he wrote in 1902, “and that it is a Harris’s tenure—about 6,000 people visited the park dangerous matter to trifle with them.” To warn tour- during the 1888 season—and seeing to their safety and ists, he published and posted an official circular that comfort was no small undertaking. Troops, with their

The War on Vandalism 47 “polite but firm and decided manner,” had to ensure that park were registered and required to carry an entry permit visitors were safe both from the dangers of a wilderness to be shown throughout their travels, those entering with experience and from exploitation by those who pro- bad intentions might be discouraged.208 In 1898, Captain vided lodging and transportation in the park. Military Erwin set up a system, involving outposts, to register visi- order number 37, for example, disseminated on June 2, tors as they entered and traveled through the park. He 1887, commanded troops “to protect visitors to the Park then compared the numbers with those from previous from any abuse or extortion by stage drivers or other years to see if the park was fulfilling its mission of being persons.”203 Harris himself inspected the park’s accom- a “‘pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of modations to determine whether service was adequate. In the people.’” Not taking into account the anomalous year his 1887 annual report, he urged the secretary to require 1897, when the Christian Endeavorers came through the that park lessees provide better accommodations for visi- park on their way home from San Francisco (boosting tors.204 While he praised the lessees when their services park attendance to 10,680), park visitation was increas- were commendable, Harris remained alert for missteps ing satisfactorily, Erwin concluded. Indeed, the numbers on the part of private enterprise. In one of the first state- rose to more than 6,500 in 1898.209 ments on record warning against potential avarice on the Unclean campsites had long been a significant part of private concessioners, Harris wrote: “. . . I have problem in the park, and with so many people touring been very forcibly impressed with the danger to which and camping in the park, the trouble worsened. While [the park] is subjected by the greed of private enterprise. Captain Boutelle had favored the creation of a system All local influence centers on schemes whereby the Park of regularly controlled campsites, Anderson was reluc- can be used for pecuniary advantage. In the unsurpassed tant. In June 1892, Secretary Noble instructed him to grandeur of its natural condition, it is the pride and glory “establish proper camping places” on roads connected to of the nation; but, if, under the guise of improvement, the main road. Recognizing that people would otherwise selfish interests are permitted to make merchandise of choose to camp in scattered locations, Noble believed its wonders and beauties, it will inevitably become a that prepared campsites might encourage usage.210 by-word and a reproach.”205 However, Anderson opposed a proposed system of semi- Later acting superintendents worried less about permanent campsites, citing the potential that the sites problems with private enterprise and more about prob- would become “ill-kept, unsightly structures, [and] fit lems with tourists. Anderson’s tenure in the park saw a breeding places for vermin of all kinds.”211 He felt that decrease in the number of tourists entering the park. He camping parties were the “source of many annoyances attributed the decline, in part, to the 1893 economic in park management,” found them negligent in leaving depression and national rail strike, but reckoned that campfires and careless about cleanliness, and stated that economic conditions could not be solely to blame, they were, in many cases, the worst offenders of specimen because the European-bound steamers were full of hunting and disfigurement of the park’s features. American tourists. Instead, he felt the general American By 1895, Anderson’s irritation at camping parties public was either unaware of the park itself, or unaware abated somewhat, after he initiated a registry system of the ease with which it could be reached. Several times, whereby he could better track their whereabouts.212 By he complained to the secretary that Americans did not 1896, he granted a license to W. W. Wylie, of Bozeman, know about the park, whereas foreigners did. He cited Montana, to establish four “permanent camps,” which as an example the fact that information about the park he found preferable to the previous situation, in which was being taught in German public schools, and sug- transportation operations had created camps that were gested producing a publication that would make “the unsightly and difficult to supervise.213 mass of the people . . . realize what a store of wonders Colonel Young also grappled with how best to deal and beauties they have within their boundaries.”206 He with campers. In 1897, he stationed troops at frequent wanted the publication to be written by a government intervals along the roads, “to prevent accident and impo- employee and distributed for free.207 sition and preserve good order.” But these guards could By 1897, travel to the park had increased such that hardly manage the huge fields of spontaneous campsites more careful and exacting accounting measures were that had sprung up throughout the park. These fields needed. An official with the U.S. Geological Society told of campers were too hard to monitor, he felt, as it was the secretary of the interior that if all people entering the difficult to “fix the responsibility of unclean camps and

48 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” unextinguished fires on the proper parties.” Young’s Pitcher managed the park, soldiers were still cleaning up solution—to forbid free camping in the park for longer the campsites of these latter visitors. When he realized than two nights and to forbid camping or grazing stock that campers were not going to dispose of their refuse at all between Gardiner and Mammoth—might have properly, Pitcher asked his men to dig holes “in order seemed drastic to some, but his reasons were sound. to afford camping parties places to dispose of cans and First, his solution would “prevent undue monopoly of refuse.” He hoped to make “suitable signs” that winter the choicest camping places;” second, it would preserve “to instruct campers where to make their disposals.”218 winter feed for game. The area between Mammoth and Camping was not the only issue raised by growing Gardiner had become so popular that its cover of grass, numbers of tourists. The lack of visitor facilities allowing vital to the antelope and mountain sheep that wintered public access to the park’s wonders was another. In 1897, there, was all but gone. Colonel Young requested that a commission composed Young also took measures to improve safety, as of a U.S. Geological Survey employee, a private citizen, well as the park’s appearance relative to campers. In the and an Army Corps of Engineers officer be appointed to “Instructions to Persons Traveling through Yellowstone advise park officials on the selection of saddle trails that National Park,” he forbade camping “at a less distance would enable visitors to view the wonders and scenery than 100 feet from any traveled road,” and the hanging of the park.219 U.S. Geological Survey Director Charles of any article “liable to frighten teams” within that area. D. Walcott reported to the secretary of the interior that Furthermore, he ordered that “[c]amp grounds must be it would be “a great addition to the Park to have a good thoroughly cleaned before they are abandoned, and such horse trail constructed to some of the prominent peaks articles as tin cans, bottles, cast-off clothing, and other and points of interest.” He suggested a trail from Mam- debris must be either buried or taken to some place where moth Hot Springs to the summit of Bunsen Peak, and they will not offend the sight.”214 then down the Gardner River past Osprey Falls; another Such stringent measures for dealing with care- to the top of Electric Peak that involved the outposts; and less campers were temporary, however. As a long-term a third from the Canyon area to the summit of Mount solution, Young, like Boutelle, proposed setting up Washburn.220 permanent camping areas. In a “Supplemental Report” In 1900, Captain Chittenden of the Army Corps issued three months after his annual report, Young told of Engineers, who was making great strides improving the interior secretary that he had recommended to park the park’s system of main roads, also began planning concessioners the Yellowstone Park Association (YPA) side roads and trails in order to improve visitor access and the Yellowstone Park Transportation Company to points of interest. He had side roads built that year, (YPTC) “a proposition to establish permanent camps, for example, to Lone Star Geyser and Inspiration Point, suitable in neatness, comfort, and convenience for a large and improved one to Great Fountain Geyser. In addition, number of visitors who desire to experience that mode Chittenden devoted time to clearing existing trails that of an outing in the park.”215 Instead of YPA or YPTC had long been neglected and that, in many cases, were taking on the camping concession, however, W. W. blocked by fallen timber. The trails were used mostly by Wylie, with permission from the Interior Department, patrols, but some camping parties also used them to reach established permanent camps at Apollinaris Spring, the sites well off the main road. Neither Chittenden nor the Upper Geyser Basin, Yellowstone Lake, and Canyon. The acting superintendent had any plans for extending the Wylie company also operated lunch stations at a point trails in 1900, but Chittenden felt that the existing trails midway between Norris and the Lower Geyser Basin, should be maintained.221 and near Yellowstone Lake.216 During his years in Yellowstone, Captain Pitcher Even after these changes, campers remained a made great strides toward providing better visitor facili- concern. Acting Superintendent Erwin noted that they ties. By the end of 1904, his men had repaired all of were his troops’ primary people of concern in regard the mileposts along the main road, and corrected new to policing and protecting the park.217 The situation mileposts on the Mammoth-to-Grand Canyon road via did not change much over the next few years. Though Tower Fall. Several informative signs noting, for example, many people chose to see the park “The Wylie Way,” points of interest relating to the Nez Perce trek through staying at the Wylie camps, others still camped on their the park in 1877 were also erected.222 Pitcher also had a own, with their own supplies. By 1906, when Captain new, half-mile side road built to the two petrified trees

The War on Vandalism 49 located about 17 miles from Mammoth Hot Springs, legible” signs for improved public access.229 Later, dur- on the road to Tower Fall. Plans were made to enclose ing Pitcher’s administration, outhouses were built at the trees with iron fencing mounted on a wall, but only Apollinaris Spring, Gibbon River, DeLacy Creek, Mud one tree was so enclosed; the other was destroyed by Geyser, and Dunraven Pass.230 vandals. South of Mammoth, an unloading platform for stagecoaches (about 100' in length) was built at Apol- linaris Spring. The entire area was cleared of dead and Conclusion fallen timber. The spring was “boxed up, and conveyed into a suitable well, constructed of rough stones, with Between 1886 and 1894, the military’s acting drinking cups attached for public use.” Blind drains superintendents, like their civilian predecessors, were were covered with gravel, and gravel footpaths between challenged to protect the park without sufficient legal the loading platform and the spring were constructed.223 authority and funds. Despite this lack of support, acting Two 50' coach platforms were built at Mud Geyser, one superintendents developed a permanent headquarters for for loading and one for unloading. Another 50' platform park administration and a series of outposts for increased was built at the head of the newly built Upper Falls stairs, park protection. They initiated year-round patrols from and large platforms with viewing seats were placed at these strategically placed permanent outposts, which the bottom.224 significantly helped protect park wildlife. They also set in Pitcher rightly sensed that many interesting places motion a series of policies with respect to nature, wildlife, were inaccessible to those unable to manage rock climb- and tourist management with which future administra- ing, or to those who did not feel secure unless they were tions would have to come to terms; they began stocking walking or standing on a well-built structure. Thus, he the park’s rivers with fish, exterminating carnivores, sup- built a new Lower Falls stairway, 360' in vertical height plying zoos with animals, and monitoring wildlife. In and 700' long, with numerous seated landings along its addition, Camp Sheridan’s Acting Assistant Surgeon G. descent, as well as a 150' stairway and a small seating L. Cline continued Philetus Norris’s work by compiling platform at Grand View. Inspiration Point also got a new a meteorological record for the park.231 This effort was stairway with a viewing platform, and a small unloading continued with the weather bureau built at Mammoth platform at its top. At Artist Point, a viewing platform Hot Springs in 1903. was erected on top of existing rocks, with a stairway Additional advances in the area of park protection leading to an unloading platform.225 All new stairways were made between 1894 and 1906. After 22 years, the were built with heavy, 4' wide planks with an easy rise, park was finally given authority to punish violators of “in order to allow people to ascend and descend who can rules and regulations by the passage of the Lacey Act, not go unassisted.”226 At Mammoth, a stairway was built which prompted an increase in the number of patrol to the floor of Devil’s Kitchen (cave), and “an attractive cabins, and new methods in park patrol, both in the well” was built near Orange Spring Mound.227 By the backcountry and on well-traveled routes. In efforts to end of the 1906 season, Pitcher planned to have all the protect vegetation and reduce fire threats, a system for newly built structures stained a color that would “blend campsite usage was established. A concerted push for in with the surrounding rocks, in order that they may protection of game ensued during these years, as park not detract any from the beauty of the canyon.”228 This officials became aware of the tenuous situation of the early call for harmony between the built and natural park’s bison population and took steps to reinvigorate it. environments, first championed by the Army Corps of Also, the first fish hatchery was constructed, and efforts Engineers, would echo through the years as park officials were made at the North Entrance to provide protection grappled with the notion of building in what was sup- and food for the antelope and elk herds. Furthermore, to posed to be a haven of natural beauty. provide visitors with expanded opportunities for viewing In addition to new viewing facilities, new out- and appreciating park wonders, saddle trails, secondary houses were built. Anderson’s administration had made roads, stairways, and other amenities were created. These some improvements in this area. In 1892, he had built, actions laid the foundation for park management in the along the tourist routes, “conspicuously marked retreats new century. for ladies and gentlemen,” and installed “fresh and

50 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” CHAPTER FOUR

Administration in Turmoil

Yellowstone’s Management in Question 1907–1916

In 1905, Hiram Chittenden, in a revised version was an accomplished fact. The last years of military in- of his earlier history of Yellowstone National Park, de- volvement in Yellowstone also saw some major positive clared that the U.S. Army’s efforts to manage the park developments: the Interior Department became more had been very successful; he also foresaw a long, bright involved with the parks it oversaw, several landmark future for the military management of the nation’s first structures were built in Yellowstone, a system of park park. “The system thus inaugurated still continues museums was conceptualized, and a civilian ranger force with every prospect of permanency,” he wrote, and “it was inaugurated. is not probable that public opinion will ever sanction a return to the old order.”1 While Chittenden’s optimism was not unfounded, the combination of two federal The Last Military Managers departments trying to administer a single government unit was proving problematic. Acting superintendents In 1907, three years after General Young retired were beholden to the Interior Department on matters from military service, Secretary of the Interior James R. pertaining to the management of the park, and to the Garfield asked him to return to Yellowstone, where he War Department when it came to military issues. To add had served briefly as acting superintendent, to take over to the confusion, construction in the park was the job John Pitcher’s command and serve as superintendent of the Army Corps of Engineers. It was, in short, time of the park. Young’s main accomplishment during his to begin deciding whether managing the nation’s parks second term was his proposal to replace the military was really a military matter. presence in the park with a corps of what he called “civil In 1907, park management turned in a new direc- guards” working for the Department of the Interior.2 For tion. When former acting superintendent and recently a variety of reasons—chief among them the fact that retired army Lieutenant General S. B. M. Young returned neither the Department of War nor the Department to Yellowstone at the request of the Department of the of the Interior was ready for the change—his proposal Interior and assumed command from Major John Pitcher was not acted upon, and in November 1908, Young was on June 1, 1907, he inaugurated a new, transitional era replaced by Harry Coupland Benson. in park management. With Young overseeing the loos- Born in Ohio before the Civil War, Benson earned ening of the military’s hold on national park manage- a Bachelor of Arts degree from Kenyon College before ment, acting superintendents Harry Benson and Lloyd entering the U.S. Military Academy in 1878, and gradu- Brett watched and, in some important ways, aided in ating in 1882. He served in several military efforts before the completion of the process. By the time Brett served assuming the acting superintendency of the park: the his last years as acting superintendent, the transfer back campaign against the Apache Indians in 1885–1886, to civilian—albeit professional civilian—management the Spanish–American War, and the military’s presence

Administration in Turmoil 51 on the Philippine Islands. He was also provost marshal buffalokeepers, and their assistants. Without a core of of San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake and fire. non-uniformed rangers on duty, Yellowstone could not His tenure in the park was only two years, but it was build a force of civilians large enough to assume signifi- very successful. According to historian Aubrey Haines, cant power or influence before transfer of the park from Benson was “a true intellectual” and “a good soldier and military hands on October 1, 1916. administrator.”3 This delay in developing a civilian corps of park In October 1910, Lloyd Milton Brett, the last rangers was troublesome, given how clear it was to military officer to serve as Yellowstone’s acting super- General Young and other acting superintendents—even intendent, took over Benson’s post. Born in Maine in as early as Moses Harris in 1887—that having soldiers 1856, Brett graduated from the U.S. Military Academy police Yellowstone furthered the interests of neither the in 1879. His service in wars with the Sioux Indians military nor the park. Harris had expressed these senti- earned him the Congressional Medal of Honor, after ments in the 1880s, as he was turning over the park’s which his military career continued with service in the administration to his successor, F. A. Boutelle.6 Twenty Apache Indian Campaign in 1885–1886, the Span- years later, Young echoed Harris when he argued, in Oc- ish–American War, and the Philippine Insurrection. tober 1907, that military management was problematic A respected military officer, Brett took up a “doubly for both the army and the park. First, it was “injurious to difficult” challenge in the park, overseeing two crucial the Army” in that regimental and squadron organizations transitions: “from horsedrawn to motorized transporta- were disrupted. Young also asserted that the necessity of tion and from military to civilian administration.”4 breaking the men into small, far-flung parties, “separated for indefinite periods of time without the personal su- pervision of an officer,” was demoralizing to the troops. The Rocky Road to Civilian Nor were the park’s interests met: “The enlisted men of Administration the Army are not selected with special reference to the duties to be performed in police patrolling, guarding, Historians Aubrey Haines and H. Duane Hamp- and maintaining the natural curiosities and interesting ton have both discussed, in great detail, the story of the ‘formations,’ . . . [nor] in protecting against the killing or movement from military to civilian governance of Yel- frightening of the game and against forest fires,” Young lowstone National Park.5 In short, from 1907 to 1916, noted.7 In addition, Young clearly believed that “divided erratic and frustratingly slow progress was made toward responsibility and accountability” was advantageous to returning civilian management to the park. During this neither the army nor the park, and should not continue. decade, park managers—military officers—advocated a “Under existing conditions,” he lamented, “the super- return to civilian rule, while the War Department, the intendent is answerable to the Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior, and Congress took turns while at the same time the troops acting as park guard are blocking the road to change. held to accountability and discipline as is contemplated A major roadblock to civilian control of Yellow- and provided for in the United States Army.”8 stone Park was its firmly entrenched military leadership. Young alluded to a problem that Horace Albright, By 1907, civilian “park rangers” had assumed duties in all in 1917, as acting director of the National Park Service other national parks except Yellowstone. As the nation’s (NPS), called “a great big three-headed monster that first park, Yellowstone continued to be operated by the it has been next to impossible to control.”9 Hampton army at a time when the newer, California parks—Yo- also found this metaphor useful. “[W]ith the roads semite, Sequoia, and General Grant (today’s Kings Can- under the direction of the Army Engineers, the cavalry yon)—unsuccessfully tried to convince the War Depart- under control of the Secretary of War, and the Acting ment, already stretched thin by the Spanish–American Superintendents serving both the Department of the War and the Philippine Insurrection, to spare soldiers for Army and the Department of the Interior,” Hampton duty in their parks. Conversely, Yellowstone had only a wrote, the management of the park was both unwieldy small contingent of civilian employees. Lack of adequate and costly.10 To slay the monster, General Young pro- Congressional appropriations for administration and posed that control of the park be put back into a single protection of the park in 1886 and 1894 meant that the set of hands—those of a “civil guard” of specifically park was able to employ only a few civilians as scouts, suited, selected, and trained men who would serve under

52 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” control of the Department of the Interior. The traits of left unheeded, and would not receive a fair hearing for the men who would form the civilian guards were clear another eight years. to Young.”11 “It is quite obvious,” he wrote, By 1908, during conversations regarding expansion of the post, the issue of the size of the military reserva- that any man assigned to duty in any capacity in tion came to a head. This was really a question of which the park should . . . be by natural inclination in- department had control of the land contained within terested in the park and its purposes. In addition, and immediately around the fort, and General Young every man should be an experienced woodsman, and Major H. T. Allen, commander of the troops in the a speedy traveler on skis, an expert trailer, a good park, took opposing sides. Young favored the Interior packer who with his horse and pack animal could Department, while Allen stood squarely on the side of carry supplies to subsist himself for a month the War Department. In January of that year, the War alone in the mountains and forests, and besides Department’s Major General J. F. Bell warned Young he should be of a cool temperament, fearless, and that “Allen is right in his views, and I hope they are not independent character, and handy with his rifle inconsistent with yours. Tho[ugh] there may never be and pistol to enable him to find and overcome any probability of trouble between you and Allen, there the wily trapper and the ugly large game head is fruitful opportunity for trouble in the situation, and and teeth hunter. He should be well informed in serious trouble might ensue were it not for the personal- the history of the park and thoroughly cognizant ity of the present occupants of the two positions held with all the curiosities and points of interest by you and Allen respectively.” “[T]he reservation,” Bell therein; he should also be qualified to pass a rea- continued, “certainly ought to include all the buildings sonable examination in zoology and ornithology. belonging to the military authorities, and ought to in- [Furthermore,] [a] visiting tourist should always clude grounds which can be used as a drill ground.”16 be favored by an intelligent and courteous answer Young disagreed. “My dear General,” he began, “there on any subject pertaining to the park from any may possibly be authority for making a military reser- guard interrogated.12 vation inside the boundaries of the Yellowstone Park, but I have failed to discover such.” He continued to say “Two years’ experience in governing the park with that there was “no probability of any friction between troops and comparing the results of enforcing due obser- Allen and [himself]” and that he even would suggest vance of all rules, regulations, and instructions through that Allen become superintendent when he left. He the troops, and through the few scouts that in reality are ended his defense of the Interior Department’s exclusive civil guards, leaves no doubt in my mind,” Young wrote and complete control of the park with this view of the in his 1907 annual report, “about the superiority of a situation: “You need not entertain any apprehension of trained and well-governed civil guard for this particular having another civilian superintendent so long as troops and difficult duty.”13 Young also argued that the soldiers are used in the park,” he wrote. “There is no salary, and actually resented “being required to subserve both the my work is simply a labor of love.”17 In another letter military interest and the interest of the park on their to Secretary Garfield, Young wrote, “It seems to me, small pay,” and that the existing system of dual com- under existing law, the Secretary of the Interior cannot mand was certainly more costly to the government. He relinquish absolute control, nor can the Secretary of War suggested that either the entire responsibility should be acquire exclusive control over any part or parcel of land given to the War Department or the troops should be within the boundaries of Yellowstone Park.”18 withdrawn.14 By late summer of that year, the issue had reached President Theodore Roosevelt instructed Young to the White House via President Roosevelt’s friend, Alex- devise a plan for “a civil guard to replace the military in ander Lambert. While spending 10 days in the park that the park.” However, according to Hampton, “[b]y the summer, Lambert noticed the tension between General time the plan had been drawn up and presented to the Young and Major Allen, not to mention the third “head Secretary of the Interior, the President had changed his of the monster,” the Army Corps of Engineers’ officer mind and the Secretary of the Interior was not willing in charge of road construction. Lambert championed at that time to request an increased appropriation.”15 Young’s position and noted that he had all of the respon- Thus, like that of others before him, Young’s advice was sibility, but none of the authority to do his job effectively.

Administration in Turmoil 53 NPS

Mounted cavalry drill on Parade Ground at Fort Yellowstone.

He also discussed the lack of knowledge, discipline, and park’s scenic beauties, and believed future appropria- experience of most of the soldiers. Finally, he promoted tions should be given to the Department of the Interior, Young’s 1907 idea of using civilian guards instead of rather than the War Department for disbursement. This troops, and told the president that Young would not stay procedure would transfer the control and supervision to in the park under the current conditions.19 the Interior Department. On the other hand, he found In September 1908, Young met with Interior Sec- the system of using regular army troops for patrol to be retary Garfield about the park situation. In a letter to “highly satisfactory.”22 President Roosevelt, Young stated that at that meeting, In November 1908, Major Harry Benson took he had agreed to stay on as superintendent, and “await over Young’s position.23 Under Benson’s tenure as acting action by Congress.” However, he added, if Major Allen superintendent, the issue of a military reservation within was not reassigned, Young would resign his own position. the bounds of Yellowstone Park was settled—at least In his annual report the next month, Young “beg[ged] temporarily—in favor of the War Department, but the to renew the recommendation made in my last annual fate of a civilian administration remained inconclusive.24 report to place the government and protection of the The debate was revived in 1910. In April of that year, new park under a selected and well-organized civil guard.” Secretary of the Interior Richard A. Ballinger responded Again, his request met with no success.20 Instead, Young’s to Missouri Congressman Harry Coudrey’s request for a position as superintendent appeared to be in jeopardy. trained civilian force, by stating that the park was “very Roosevelt’s friend, Lambert, had written to Secretary efficiently patrolled by three troops of cavalry of 100 men Garfield expressing his opinion that “at present the each, with the assistance of three civilian scouts.” He felt Park is worse cared for than it has been for the last ten that “it was inadvisable to substitute civilian employees years. The game in the Park is not being properly and for soldiers for the protection of the reservation.”25 Im- honestly protected and some campers even suggested mediately thereafter, Secretary Ballinger requested that that the soldiers were killing the game, particularly the Secretary of War Jacob Dickinson assign one additional grizzly bears.”21 troop of cavalry and a full pack train to the park for the Garfield, who also visited Yellowstone during the 1910 season. Dickinson, however, demurred. Officially, summer of 1908, was convinced that the “Government he argued that the fourth available troop was needed at should adopt a more advanced policy respecting [the Fort Duchesne, Utah, to “preserve order on the Indian park’s] maintenance, improvement, and operation.” He Reservation.” Privately, he was reluctant to make Fort supported an extension of roads, trails, and structures Yellowstone a priority because he felt that the soldiers that enabled the public to “obtain the benefits” of the on duty in the park “have little, if any, time for proper

54 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” military training, and it is very desirable, for this rea- tional parks. The conference was convened by Ballinger’s son, to keep the force so employed at the minimum replacement, Walter L. Fisher, who continued Ballinger’s number.”26 Further, the War Department was reluctant investigation into the idea of a national park bureau. to assign enough soldiers to police the park adequately Held in Yellowstone in September 1911, the conference because a tour of duty in Yellowstone was poor prepara- was intended to study the national park problem and tion for “real” military service. help promote the creation of a bureau.31 In August 1910, Secretary Ballinger received word The subject of park administration was indeed one that Major-General Leonard Wood, Army Chief of Staff, of three main issues on the agenda of the first National wanted to transfer Major Benson and the three troops Parks Conference, the other two being concessions and of Fifth Cavalry to the Hawaiian Islands, and to replace transportation. “The purpose of the conference,” the Benson with Major Lloyd Milton Brett and his First proceedings stated, “was to consider all the questions Cavalry troops. Ballinger was sorry to lose the capable that arise in the administration of these reservations in Major Benson, but he did not feel it was his prerogative order that the department [of the Interior] might be to dictate personnel assignments to the War Department. able to make such changes in the regulations and to Thus, in October 1910, Yellowstone received what was foster such development as might be for the best interest to be its final military superintendent.27 Shortly before of the public.”32 The assembled officials, representing Major Benson left, the chief clerk of the Department of concessions, parks, the Interior Department, and other the Interior, Clement Ucker, made an inspection of the interested groups, discussed at length the idea of a cen- park. In the conclusion of his report, he strongly recom- tral bureau to administer all of the parks. Yellowstone’s mended that a civilian superintendent be appointed with Colonel Brett diplomatically declined to take sides on continued use of soldiers for patrol. He also called for all the issue, instead commending both types of park gover- employees in all national parks to be brought under civil nance. Brett averred that the military, with its organiza- service rules, and for “the appointment of the superinten- tion and discipline, was “as well suited for this kind of dents [to] be taken out of the realm of politics.”28 work as it is for any other military work, because,” as Throughout the summer of 1911, the ques- he put it, protecting the park was “military work,” but tion of Yellowstone’s administration, as well as the conceded that a civilian administration would win out administration of the rest of the national parks, kept in the end simply because it would have more staying the Department of the Interior busy. Department of- power. “The only argument,” he stated, “which can be ficials explored questions of whether any law existed to adduced for replacing us by the other form [a civilian “prevent the Secretary of the Interior from appointing administration] is that the other form should have more a civilian Superintendent,” and of how such a civilian permanency.”33 superintendent would be paid—that is, if he would Another conference held in 1911, the annual be paid from the appropriations by the Sundry Civil meeting of the American Civic Association (ACA), had Appropriations Act, approved March 4, 1911, for the as its primary focus “a federal Bureau of National Parks.” following fiscal year.29 This conference, organized by the association’s leader, J. By that time, forces outside the park and its mili- Horace McFarland, who had also attended the National tary management were advocating the development of Parks Conference, featured an address by President Wil- a civilian management plan. For example, J. Horace liam Howard Taft, who fully endorsed the creation of McFarland, president of the American Civic Association, a bureau of national parks. “If we are going to have took a leadership role in convincing both the American national parks,” Taft proclaimed, “we ought to make Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) and Secretary them available to the people, and we ought to build roads Ballinger to support the establishment of “a bureau to . . . in order that those parks may become what they are administer the national parks.” McFarland believed that intended to be when Congress creates them. . . . And park policies should be driven by professional decisions, we cannot do that, we cannot carry them on effectively, not political ones. His views held sway: the ASLA began unless we have a bureau which is itself distinctly charged to educate the public on the issue, and Ballinger recom- with the responsibility for their management and for mended the creation of such a bureau in his annual report their building up.”34 for 1910.30 Haines wrote that Ballinger’s report led to a While President Taft supported a national parks conference organized to deal with problems in the na- bureau, Congress did not.35 Shortly after the conferences

Administration in Turmoil 55 concluded, Colonel Brett used his annual report to call a definite policy regarding soldiers and their duties. The on the secretary of the interior to decide upon a fixed response from the Department of the Interior was not policy regarding military versus civilian management in reassuring: “Your letter received. There seems to be no order to proceed, as he put it, with a “stable and pro- occasion for the anxiety you express. Have heard nothing gressive administration.”36 It had been four years since here of contemplated change and can doubtless arrange an official directly involved with the administration matters satisfactorily should occasion arise.” A few days of Yellowstone Park had rallied for the cause of civil- later, Secretary Lane’s assistant explained to Brett that ian management. It was time for the War and Interior perhaps Brett was “exaggerating the disposition of the departments to decide, Brett wrote, “if the park shall War Department,” and that War Department Secretary continue to be policed by United States troops or if they Lindley Garrison “seemed disposed to cooperate as far shall in the near future be replaced by a civilian organiza- as possible with us in giving the park an effective ad- tion.”37 Brett repeated this recommendation verbatim in ministration.”43 his 1915 annual report.38 His efforts to persuade others While downplaying the tensions surrounding the to move on the matter can thus be read as an attempt park’s administration, the Interior Department seemed to convince Congress to do the same. ready to act on other issues by providing the necessary By 1913, the Interior Department was providing leadership for change. In 1913, for example, Lane ap- more leadership in the drive to improve the situation pointed Adolph C. Miller, an economics professor from in the nation’s parks. That year, President Woodrow the University of California, as assistant secretary in Wilson appointed a former city attorney from San charge of national parks. Horace Albright—the future Francisco, Franklin K. Lane, who possessed “informed superintendent of Yellowstone National Park—began concern for the national parks and an active agenda for his NPS career as assistant to Miller.44 In 1914, Miller their improvement,” to be his secretary of the interior.39 chose Mark Daniels, a San Francisco-based landscape One concern common to national parks at the time architect who had helped him devise a plan to develop stemmed from their deplorable sanitary conditions.40 Yosemite Valley in a non-disruptive, view-enhancing, and Yellowstone’s problems with sanitation and stream pol- aesthetically pleasing way, to be general superintendent lution were serious, and Acting Superintendent Brett and landscape engineer for all national parks.45 These felt that the problem “must be met by some general plan men would play decisive roles in promoting and craft- in the near future.”41 Lane, for one, appeared ready to ing the new civilian service devoted to administering listen to park administrators and rectify the situation. the nation’s parks. According to historian Ethan Carr, Lane, “[f]aced with By the spring of 1914, officials in the War Depart- limited resources for park planning . . . improvised and ment began seriously to re-assess the army’s presence in sought out cooperative agencies” to help him solve such Yellowstone. In a letter to his counterpart in the Interior problems as park sanitation.42 Department, the secretary of war indicated that he would While officials at the Interior Department were send a modified cavalry detachment of 250 troops to pro- moving in the direction of civilian administration, they tect the park. Unlike the soldiers who were usually sent to were also reluctant to offend the War Department. Thus, Yellowstone, these “selected cavalrymen, preferably those when Brett concluded, toward the end of the 1913 sea- having experience in the . . . Park and having a natural son, that the War Department’s attitude toward the park taste and aptitude for the character of duties which they was “a menace to the efficient management of this res- are to perform there,” would be well suited to their duty. ervation,” the Interior Department attempted to defuse With World War I already underway in Europe, the the conflict. In a letter to Secretary Lane, Brett quoted secretary of war was clearly preparing for the eventuality the War Department Inspector’s report: “it is my belief that a civilian force would take over administration of that this is not a proper duty for the Army. The Army the park. “[S]hould circumstances arise necessitating a should be withdrawn from this park and from all national substitution of civilian rangers for cavalrymen in guard- parks.” Brett believed that this attitude affected the men ing the park,” he wrote, the Interior Department “could on duty. Furthermore, he felt frustrated in his attempts take over such of these experienced men as it might need, to maintain order in the park, as the Quartermaster they being discharged from the Army for that purpose Department, for example, would not allow him to make should their service be needed.”46 needed improvements at the soldier stations. Brett urged In July 1914, the Second Squadron of First Cavalry

56 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” was withdrawn from Yellowstone and sent to its new to remove the troops from the park, joined with Acting station at the Presidio of Monterey, California. The Superintendent Brett in these discussions.53 “The plan squadron was replaced by 200 cavalrymen drawn from contemplated the release of a number of sergeants and nine regiments on duty posts across the country. Secre- corporals,” Albright later recalled, “who had had such tary of War Lindley Garrison then took additional steps experience in leadership and had shown real interest toward a civilian takeover. In a letter to the Chairman of in Yellowstone Park, these men to be appointed park the House Appropriations Committee, he explained that rangers. Other rangers [were] to be recruited from stage the cost of administering and supplying Yellowstone was drivers, scouts who were on duty to help the soldiers one reason why the War Department “should be relieved . . . etc.”54 of carrying the burden of national parks.” He believed the The stumbling block in creating a civilian admin- Interior Department was ready to “take over the burden, istration for Yellowstone at this point was Congress. provided Congress will appropriate the money necessary “Congress had placed Yellowstone Park under protection to bring this about.” He also offered to turn over to the of the military and intended . . . for it to remain that Department of the Interior “the complete plant which way,” some representatives argued. In addition, despite has been established, barracks, quarters, telephone lines all evidence to the contrary, some politicians believed and all free of cost, with the idea that the Army may be civilian management would cost more.55 relieved entirely from all police work in the parks.”47 What finally tipped the balance in favor of civil- In an earlier letter, Garrison had mentioned that Brett ian administration was the introduction of automobiles would remain on duty until October 31, 1915, at which into Yellowstone National Park in the summer of 1915. time “the arrangements contemplated to permit the Behind Mather’s decision to allow cars into the park complete withdrawal of the army from the Park” would was the notion that the increased revenues would help be completed.48 offset some costs, and thus make the idea of a civilian The secretary of the interior’s office was also pre- administration of the park more financially feasible.56 paring for significant changes. In 1915, Secretary Lane Also, because the War Department refused to let sol- hired Stephen Tyng Mather—a Chicago businessman, diers work at the entrance stations, the Department of preservationist, and mountaineer who would later be- the Interior had to hire “four park rangers” to do that come the first director of the NPS—to be his assistant work.57 As the Judge Advocate General put it, the troops in charge of national parks.49 As historian Linda McClel- were allowed “only to prevent trespassers from entering land has written, many saw this as “a hopeful sign that the Park, and to remove those who did gain entrance,” park matters would gain increasing attention and that meaning that all other tasks—from working on roads the much needed improvements would receive congres- to stocking streams and fighting forest fires—had to be sional funding.”50 performed by “a large civilian force.” Thus, in an era of With the appointment of Mather, and with Al- incipient automobile tourism, the military became a bright and Daniels already at work on national park less-suitable entity for managing parks.58 matters, the movement to create a bureau for parks was In the meantime, Mather and Albright took steps moving steadily forward. In May 1915, Mather estab- to create the park’s ranger force. Mather’s plan envisioned lished a system of communication between the parks, all rangers being employed by the soon-to-be-created the office of the general superintendent, and himself to National Park Service instead of by specific parks. With handle regular monthly reports, requests for funds, and knowledge gained by work experience and training, each any important questions regarding policy.51 Before the ranger could be transferred to other parks during his year was out, he created a park filing system to preserve in service. The idea was to create an atmosphere in which order of receipt and to cross-reference either the original a person would want to make the job his career; thus, or copies of all orders and instructions and other cor- “each man would have the fullest incentive to give his respondence dating back to January 1, 1907.52 best service, knowing that advancement would be based Mather and Albright were also working on the issue solely on character and general efficiency.” Persons who of withdrawing troops from Yellowstone, and identifying possessed tact and a good temperament would be chosen the particular needs of Yellowstone’s future ranger force. after they had passed a civil service examination that Major General Hugh L. Scott, who was then chief of staff would test for educational qualifications.59 of the army and who agreed with Mather on the need During the spring of 1916, discussions were

Administration in Turmoil 57 NPS YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #493

Visitors on open coach. Tourists eating beside automobile atop Mount Washburn, ca. 1920s.

underway at the Interior Department on how to proceed wrote to Mather suggesting that the Interior Department with removing troops from Yellowstone. Because the purchase $65,000 worth of goods from the army. That Sundry Civil Appropriations Act of March 3, 1883, had amount, however, did not include the post’s hospital authorized the secretary of the interior to request the use equipment, for which the Department of the Interior of “temporary” troops from the War Department, no later had to pay the War Department.62 legislation was necessary for the transfer back from the The transfer of the park from military to civilian War Department.60 In July, just one month before the hands proceeded smoothly, but was not without occa- NPS would be formally created on August 25, 1916, In- sional bumps along the way. For instance, it was not clear terior Secretary Lane wrote to Secretary of War Newton whether the Army Corps of Engineers’ buildings were Baker requesting that the troops be relieved of duty after included in the transfer agreement. The disagreement the end of the 1916 season. According to Lane, both was cleared up when an arrangement was made for the departments agreed that certain “selected cavalrymen” Interior Department to reserve “one double set of stone would be available to remain as civilian rangers upon quarters, two double sets of officers wooden quarters, their official discharge from the army. The men, selected two sets of noncommissioned officers quarters, and the by Colonel Brett, would be “appointed first-class park equivalent of one-half the double stone barracks and rangers at a salary of $100 per month.” Also, all prop- blacksmith shop” from the corps.63 erty constructed and maintained by the army would be transferred to the Department of the Interior. Secretary Baker responded that he would arrange for the transfer Developments in the Built Environment of troops to take effect on October 1, 1916. The men selected for the civilian ranger corps would be officially Several developments occurred in the park’s built discharged on September 29, in order to begin serving environment during the last decade of military manage- in the NPS on October 1.61 ment. Fort Yellowstone was completed, several soldier Adjutant General W. M. Wright directed the trans- stations were built, a museum system was conceptualized, fer of all army clothing, camp, and garrison equipment and landscape architects began to influence the planning to the Quartermaster’s Depot in St. Louis, Missouri. and improvement of park structures and landscapes. Based upon an inspection and valuation of the army, Fort Yellowstone took on its present characteristic the Interior Department was offered any desired stores appearance, as important new buildings were added or supplies remaining at Fort Yellowstone. The disposi- between 1908 and 1913. In 1909, the post was enlarged tion of the remaining supplies, stores, and transportation to house the four-troop detachment long deemed neces- was to be supervised by the commanding general of the sary to protect the park. Four troops (a troop consisted Western Department. After an inspection by Super- of 60–100 men) had lived in the park before, but under intendent of National Parks Robert B. Marshall (also unsatisfactory conditions. To house four troops com- chief geographer of the U.S. Geological Survey), Wright fortably, additional barracks and officer quarters were

58 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #23562 permanent post in 1909, military authorities decided to build a bachelor officers’ quarters (BOQ). Fort Yel- lowstone’s BOQ was a two-story, T-shaped structure with the major wing running north–south and a smaller wing centered on the east side. “A large roofed porch extend[ed] along the major portion of the west eleva- tion,” wrote Battle and Thompson, and a stone gable with “a semi-circular attic window set in an arched opening” added a gentle touch to the strongly classical and linear features of all buildings in this set.67 For this building and others of its time period, the quartermas- ter adapted the Colonial Revival Style.68 The building’s Double cavalry barracks, ca. 1915. plan was typical for bachelor officers’ quarters, with apartments for six single officers and “an officers’ mess or club.”69 Fort Yellowstone’s BOQ—as was common needed. Seven buildings were added in 1909: a double with most such structures at similar military installa- cavalry barracks, a bachelor officers’ quarters, a duplex tions—faced the parade ground, and was placed near for two captains, a field officer’s quarters, two large the other officer housing.70 cavalry stables, and a building for both a stable guard Fort Yellowstone’s bachelor officers’ quarters were and a blacksmith shop. These buildings were made of probably built because each permanent installation need- stone, which was readily available, relatively cheap, ed a BOQ, not necessarily because more officers’ quarters fire-resistant, and permanent. All seven structures had were needed. According to Battle and Thompson, “there walls of local sandstone; lintels and sills of dressed stone; were more than enough officers’ quarters at Fort Yel- painted wooden trim, eaves and soffits; and, hipped roofs lowstone for the permanent staff” when the BOQ was of red-clay tile.64 Also in 1909, Superintendent Norris’s built. The building was also intended to house visiting blockhouse was removed, being inadequate for further army officials and staff, including the dental surgeon, the army use. inspector general, and courts martial boards.71 The barracks—the largest building at Fort Yellow- There was some question as to the appropriate stone—had a capacity of two troops, or 200 men. With size of the field officer’s quarters. During the planning “a U-shaped plan . . . the central wing running north stages, Major Allen, the commanding officer at the time south, and transverse east–west wings at either end,” the and the person who would reside in the building, wrote building was “generally symmetrical about an east–west to the War Department commander that he needed a axis.” It was “originally divided along this axis from base- bigger residence than plans called for. “I beg to state,” he ment to attic,” wrote architect David Battle and historian wrote, “. . . this place, like West Point, Fortress Monroe, Erwin Thompson, “each company occupying one end of Fort Meyer, and probably a few other posts, is annually the structure.” It had three floors, each having “a covered visited by a large number of people (10,414 last year) porch . . . along the west elevation of the central wing, and that it is incumbent upon the Commanding Officer and along all three walls facing the court on the east.” For to be prepared to house more persons than would be decoration, a band of dressed stone “extend[ed] around possible with a field officer’s set.”72 He preferred plans the entire building just above the first floor windows.”65 for a commanding officer’s house, which would have The design of these buildings is noteworthy because for cost more and was “designed for colonels and above at the first time, the Quartermaster Department employed regimental or larger posts.” His request was turned down, civilian architects who brought with them design ide- but an extra bedroom and bath in the attic were added als inspired by the Beaux Arts movement. Thus, Fort to the otherwise standard plans for the field officer’s Yellowstone’s architecture from this period included quarters.73 such typical Beaux Arts elements as formal site plans, Allen’s request ran squarely into the army’s concern classically inspired designs, and “formal symmetrical with rising construction costs, largely the result of “[n]ew building layouts arranged around axes.”66 systems of heat, water, and sewerage and electric or gas Because Fort Yellowstone was still considered a lighting.” “To manage these changes and reduce new

Administration in Turmoil 59 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #23955

Double officers’ quarters. 1918.

construction costs,” wrote the authors of Context Study assigned to hospital duty, was built in 1909. It had the of the United States Quartermaster General Standardized capacity to hold 12 men.79 Plans, 1866–1942, “existing plans were rearranged and In 1911, the so-called “new,” one-story, concrete wasted space eliminated to create smaller buildings guard house (jail) was built. Designed as a rectangle, ‘without sacrificing convenience.’”74 On the first floor, the structure was one and one-half stories high, with the plan for the field officer’s quarters called for a library, a covered porch running its full length. Although the dining room, and parlor for socializing, as well as the structure was designed to be built of stone, concrete was necessary kitchen, entrance hall, and pantries. There were ultimately used instead. Stone probably proved to be too four bedrooms and two baths on the second floor, and expensive; as authors of the Context Study confirmed, two bedrooms in the attic, with space for an additional concrete was often used at this time to reduce costs.80 As bedroom and bath, which in this instance were added with most other buildings built in this period, double- immediately to the plan.75 hung, wood windows were used throughout. Bars were The double set of captains’ quarters, a two-story embedded into the concrete of the prison windows and duplex facing the parade ground to the west, had a cov- toilet for added security.81 ered entrance porch and a back porch on each side of the The building with perhaps the most interesting duplex. The plan for this building was also symmetrical history at Fort Yellowstone is the chapel. Construction “about a central east–west axis.”76 The two cavalry stables began in 1912, but plans for the building dated back were symmetrical “about both [their] major and minor several years. In 1897, a concerned citizen wrote to the axes.” They had a rectangular, two-story plan with “a acting superintendent lamenting “the lack of facilities gabled roof over the clerestory at the loft, and shed for public worship at Fort Yellowstone,” and offered to roofs over the wings on either side.” Both stables could build a chapel. Colonel Young, in his first stint as act- hold 94 horses in either boxes or stalls.77 The one-story ing superintendent, refused the offer, explaining that blacksmith shop, also rectangular and basically sym- the limited amount of land available for military use metrical, was intended to serve the two cavalry stables, precluded the construction of buildings unrelated to and was outfitted with saddle shops, blacksmith shops, “purely military purposes.” and guard rooms for both.78 Religious enthusiasts were not so easily deterred. Although money was appropriated in 1909 for Just after the turn of the century, an Episcopalian mis- a new hospital, Battle and Thompson reported that it sionary named John Pritchard established himself near was not built until 1911, because the Surgeon General what is now Emigrant, Montana, and held occasional did not approve of the site selected. Instead, a one-story, services in a troop mess hall at Fort Yellowstone. Inspired frame hospital annex, intended as quarters for personnel perhaps by the success of Pritchard’s operation, two

60 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” “ardent churchmen”—Acting Superintendent Captain adjutant general for 15 new buildings, listed in order of John Pitcher and U.S. Commissioner Judge John W. importance. First on the list was a riding hall. Over the Meldrum—joined forces to get a chapel built. But course of Brett’s and other commanding officers’ tenure after funds were appropriated for fiscal year 1909, park at Fort Yellowstone, inspectors general had criticized the superintendent General Young again caused the project fort’s troops on several fronts. In March of that year, the to be delayed. Finally, while many army personnel and inspector general found “all troops slow in work with civilians thought the post would be better served by sabre and showing need of more practice.”87 Conceding the construction of a recreation hall, which could have that Yellowstone’s inclement winter weather prevented hosted worship services and also served many other outdoor training, Brett requested an indoor riding purposes, legislation “For the Construction of a Chapel arena, arguing that his troops were held to “a standard in or Near the Military Reservation Within Yellowstone of efficiency that [was] high considering the handicaps National Park” was introduced, passed, and signed into of extreme cold weather extending over more than half law.82 While many at the fort saw no need for a chapel, the year, deep snow, and the absence of a riding hall.”88 there were plenty in the Department of the Interior and Requests for a riding hall continued to dominate Brett’s the War Department who approved of the idea of turning wish-list, but the quartermaster general’s office predict- soldiers’ minds from the worldly distractions of drink and ably responded, “No funds are at present available for the gambling to an otherworldly arena. On his trip to the construction of a riding hall at Fort Yellowstone, Wyo., park in 1910, Clement Ucker, for example, complained and no item for such a purpose has been included in the about the number of saloons and “dives” at Gardiner, estimates for the fiscal year.”89 Montana, a number similar to that found at many other In September 1912, Inspector General Alonzo types of federal reservations—military and naval—as Gray made a more forceful plea for a riding hall. “There well as at some other national parks. He believed that are many posts in the country provided with a riding temptation to the soldiers should be removed, and even hall where it is not needed to the extent that it is needed promoted the idea of having the Montana legislature pass here,” he argued. “The lack of a riding hall reduces the a law preventing the operation of saloons or gambling military efficiency of this command, which is used as houses within two miles of a park entrance.83 park police during the open season.”90 Perhaps the War By the early twentieth century, chapels were rela- Department was unwilling to put more money into the tively common on military posts throughout the nation, Yellowstone post when political winds were shifting and chapel designs were even standardized. Most chapels toward civilian management of national parks. built during this period were in the Gothic Revival Style One other building government officials hoped to and, according to the Context Study, stood as “major construct during this period deserves mention. During examples of high artistic expression.”84 According to the last decade of military management, there were plans Haines, the plan for the Yellowstone chapel was “essen- to build a new administration building. One architect tially that of a cruciform church, though its arrangement involved with the project was Robert Reamer, the North- is indicative of an Episcopalian origin—possibly from a ern Pacific Railroad’s architect who had designed the Old standard plan of that denomination.”85 The church was Faithful Inn and the railway station at Gardiner. When constructed of native sandstone, quarried from the bluffs Chief Clerk Ucker visited Yellowstone during the sum- overlooking the Gardner River. The stone used for the mer of 1910, he got a glimpse of Reamer’s plans for the chapel was handled differently from that used in other administration building, which Ucker found to be the park structures. It was “roughly squared and coursed as “most artistic and appropriate building in every respect opposed to the ashlar construction found elsewhere, and that could be erected.” He urged the Department of the the finished stone [was] hand-tooled rather than machine Interior to approve the plans and secure funds for the finished.” With its pitched roof “supported by wooden building’s erection. While in the park, Ucker requested trussed arches and roofed with slate shingles,” the chapel Reamer to prepare plans for a substation and residence at was finished in January 1913, and was the last building the West Entrance.91 Congress and the Interior Depart- constructed at Fort Yellowstone.86 ment did not take action in regard to either building at The story of several structures not built in Yellow- that time, but discussions continued about the construc- stone is perhaps as telling as that of those that were. For tion of a new administration building. example, in 1911, Acting Superintendent Brett asked the In November 1913, Colonel Brett revived the issue

Administration in Turmoil 61 of a new administration building when he wrote Inte- built during this period. The importance of such cabins rior Secretary Lane concerning suggestions to improve for patrolling the park both in winter and summer was park access. Apparently, Mr. Richard T. Greene of New outlined in a 1908 letter from Acting Superintendent York City had complained to the secretary about travel Young to Secretary Garfield: conditions and accommodations in the park. While Brett dismissed most of Greene’s displeasure, claiming, there are scattered throughout the park, in what for example, that Greene’s request for boardwalks would are intended to be secreted points, cabins called lead to the “unthinkable” outcome of having the park snowshoe cabins. These cabins are at a distance “resemble Atlantic City,” he did agree that the park could of about 10 miles from the outlying outposts. It do a better job of informing the public about notable is one of the duties of the enlisted men and of park features. “That information of all the natural objects the scouts who may be out on outpost, to cross is not well disseminated is correct,” he admitted to Lane. the country on snowshoes, and these cabins “This feature is turned over to guides, bell boys, and are placed at distances which are considered to porters, by the hotels and camps,” he continued, “and be a fair day’s travel for the men on snowshoes such information as they are able to give is not of much through the mountains. The work of climbing value.” Conceding that park officials needed to offer the the mountains is so difficult that it is impossible public more in the way of information, Brett lobbied for for the soldiers and scouts to carry anything on a new administration building by coupling it with the their backs. For this reason the Interior Depart- idea of a museum. Greene’s “complaint,” he told Lane, ment purchases for the funds appropriated for the “emphasizes the necessity for an administration build- maintenance and protection of the Yellowstone ing, housing all that is interesting in historical data and National Park, a small amount of rations which specimens of natural curiosities, etc.” He even advocated is stored in these cabins and is used by the scouts that “[s]mall branches of the administration building in and soldiers during the nights spent in the cabins the shape of bungalows . . . be erected at Norris, Upper on the occasions when they visit them.93 Basin, and the Canyon,” to be staffed by persons “able to give intelligent information.”92 Military acting superintendents after Young agreed While it would be several decades before Brett’s with this assessment, and made every effort to improve dream of an administration/museum building came to the cabins and even add to the system throughout the fruition, his proposal is noteworthy. For one, it marked years. the first time a government official called for museum In 1912, a snowshoe cabin was built on the shore space in Yellowstone. Second, because Brett’s vision of Buffalo Lake, within the state of Idaho, one mile east entailed branch museums, he, in effect, advocated an of the park’s west boundary. The one-story, one-room log organized system of museum and administrative facilities structure “atop a mortar and cobble foundation” initially spread throughout the park that could provide useful had a sod roof, later replaced by an overhanging gabled information to visitors, such as exists today. Finally, and wood-shingled one. As was customary at the time, his model of putting a museum under the same roof as the cabin’s logs were saddle-notched.94 Still standing administration offices was an early version of what was today, the cabin at Buffalo Lake is, according to most to become a park staple in the 1950s: the visitor center, scholars, the park’s oldest existing snowshoe cabin.95 Sev- a building combining protective, administrative, and eral soldier stations built at the time, for example, those informative functions. While none of these buildings at Norris and Bechler River, are also still standing. was built at the time, it is clear from Greene’s complaint The present, third soldier station at Norris was and Brett’s proposal that the need for such facilities was built in 1908, after the second station burned to the great. It would be only a question of time before they ground that February.96 The presence of a government were put back on the drawing board. structure at Norris dates to Patrick Conger’s administra- If government officials could not come up with tion (1882–1883), when he had a cabin built for his funds for museum space, they did find money for bol- assistant superintendents, as one of his “five comfortable stering the park’s protective infrastructure. Integral to cabins” throughout the park.97 That structure served the administration and protection of the park, several Conger’s and subsequent administrations until Colonel soldier stations and so-called “snowshoe cabins” were Young, during his first tour of duty in the park, replaced

62 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #199

Norris Soldier Station, ca. 1916. the station with a better structure in 1897.98 When Cap- and with the past.”103 Another name for this architec- tain Chittenden recommended to John Pitcher that the ture is Adirondack Style, which Linda McClelland has stations be enlarged and improved, the Norris Soldier suggested involved “the use of native logs and rock in a Station was one of the first to receive attention. Pitcher rustic unfinished form, naturalistic siting of structures, considered the Norris station to be “the poorest station incorporation of porches and viewing platforms, the cli- we have,” and commenced drawing up plans for its matic adaptation of using native stone for the foundation improvement in 1901. The Norris station was enlarged and lower story and native timber above, stone chimneys at that time, however, by only a separate small structure with massive fireplaces and mantles, open interiors with known to the troops as the “officers’ dog house.”99 ceilings of exposed rafters and trusses, and a multitude According to R. Laurie and Thomas H. Simmons, of windows.”104 Robert Reamer, architect of the Old Faithful Inn, vol- Indeed, the Norris station has many of these char- unteered to draw up plans for the third Norris soldier acteristics: one of the four chimneys is stone (the others station, but because “there are a few discrepancies be- are brick); the logs have “square notches with three tween Reamer’s design and the building as constructed,” surfaces cut at the ends, except for those on the porch, it is not clear if Reamer’s plan was implemented.100 The which are flush cut”; the log ends “extend beyond the building’s T-shaped plan also resembled, with modifi- plane of the building in a tapered fashion, creating a bat- cations, Pitcher’s 1901 drawing, which had two rooms tered appearance”; some logs are unpeeled; the doors are for officers only accessible from the porch, not from vertical boards with “hand wrought metal straps”; there the station’s living quarters.101 Simmons and Simmons are “two burled tree trunk posts supporting the roof” reported that Lieutenant Cox and Mr. Rowlands, from at the front; and there are numerous windows.105 The the Quartermaster Department, completed the drawings Norris Soldier Station remains standing, and currently and specifications for the building.102 houses the Museum of the National Park Ranger—after The building, designed in Rustic Style, was a one- having been “rebuilt from the ground up, log-by-log” in story log structure with “a roof of intersecting gables clad 1976 as part of a U.S. centennial exhibit.106 with wood shingles, overhanging eaves and exposed rafter The Bechler River Soldier Station, built largely ends.” According to Albert H. Good, editor in 1933 of in 1910, is also still standing. The station and barn Park Structures and Facilities, rustic design represented a are frame structures with hipped roofs clad with wood style that “through the use of native materials in proper shingles. The offset front porch has square columns and scale, and through the avoidance of rigid, straight lines, a stick balustrade. The ranger station on the site is the and over-sophistication, gives the feeling of having been officers’ quarters “dog house” built at the Thumb Soldier executed by pioneer craftsmen with limited hand tools. Station in 1904, and moved to the Bechler River site in It thus achieved sympathy with natural surroundings 1946. According to Simmons and Simmons, this officers’

Administration in Turmoil 63 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #8669 quarters structure “may be the only remaining of the of- ficer quarters associated with each of the soldier stations except [for] the one at the North Entrance.”107 Several other soldier stations were built or im- proved during the last decade of military involvement in the park; a number of these structures were either revised extensively or replaced at a later date. In 1907, for example, the old station near Rainy Lake at Tower Fall was demolished and replaced with a new station, a cabin, and stable built nearer the junction of the Grand Loop and Northeast Entrance roads.108 This is the oldest soldier station still standing, even if it has undergone Canyon Soldier Station. 1906. much revision and improvement.109 In 1910, contractor

J. B. Cain of Bozeman, Montana, built a second sta- YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #22439 tion, formally referred to as “the new Gallatin Station,” in the northwest corner of the park.110 This station, a frame house with a lath-and-plaster interior and painted green on the outside, included a stable large enough to house twelve horses.111 The station was replaced after a destructive fire in 1918.112 In 1912, a new soldier station was built near the park boundary on Crevice Mountain, east of Gardiner.113 In 1914, a new Snake River Station (one-story log building, 16' × 50', with an 16' × 24' ad- dition forming a T-shape) was built in late summer near the South Entrance, to replace the one that burned on August 7, 1914.114 According to Haines, by the end of the military era, there were 16 soldier outposts (snowshoe Soda Butte Soldier Station. 1905. cabins or soldier stations). Not counting the cabin at Buffalo Lake, which was not part of the system at that time, there were cabins or stations at Soda Butte (1886; in most cases remained less than adequate.117 In 1912, 5 men), Grand Canyon (1886; 14 men), Norris (1886; the inspector general’s report included the following 15 men), Riverside (1886; 10 men), Lower Geyser Basin suggestion: “All sub stations need a bath house built on (Fountain) (1886; 14 men), Upper Geyser Basin (1886; and a hot water tank attached to the kitchen range. At 15 men), Lake Outlet (1887; 15 men), Snake River present the men bathe under conditions which will be (1892; 5 men), Thumb Bay (1897; 11 men), Tower Fall absolutely impossible in winter. The result will be that, (1901; 7 men), Gardiner (1903; 6 men), Sylvan Pass in winter, they will not bathe.”118 Running water was (1904; 5 men), Cooke City (1904), Gallatin (1908; 4 needed at the stations for another reason—fire. Running men), Bechler (1911; 5 men), and Crevice (1901 and water “would not only add to the comfort of the men 1912; 3 men).115 who are cooped up within these stations for from five to Improvements to the stations and cabins were nu- eight months, and who do their patrolling and scouting merous over the years. In 1910, for example, the army’s upon skis,” wrote the inspector general, “but would add acting adjutant general consented to the construction an additional protection against fire, which, if it should of bathing facilities. Previous requests for such facilities burn [their] skis, would probably sacrafice [sic] the lives had been rejected. For instance, Major Cheatam of the of the men at these posts.”119 Quartermaster’s Department in Washington, D.C., with- While these reports drew attention to the dismal held permission because he figured the soldiers, whom condition of many soldier stations, the reports of other, he thought only manned the outposts during the sum- more aesthetically minded critics found fault with the mer months, could bathe in the rivers.116 While some appearance of the soldier stations and snowshoe cabins. sanitary improvements were made after 1910, conditions For example, when Chief Clerk Clement Ucker visited

64 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #129313

View of Fort Yellowstone from Capitol Hill, ca. 1915. the soldier stations as part of his 1910 tour of the park, 8 months’ supply of firewood, proper toilet facilities, he found that “no similarity in style of architecture had and proper storage for an 8 months’ supply of beef and been followed.” He urged the interior secretary to erect an 8 months’ supply of rations.”123 Brett agreed with suitable stations for the soldiers’ use, in a style of archi- the inspector general’s recommendations: “I earnestly tecture that would conform to the style chosen for the advocate all that is suggested by the Inspector General new administration building (which, as has been noted, on these subjects,” he wrote the adjutant general. “The was not built).120 fifteen outlying soldier stations must be recognized as a Other complaints regarding the outposts focused part of the barracks and quarters of this command.”124 on their appearance as well. In August 1911, Brigadier Commanding General Marion P. Maus agreed. In General Marion Maus, the commanding general of the October 1912, he wrote again to the adjutant general Department of the Columbia, inspected Fort Yellow- about the state of affairs at Fort Yellowstone. His com- stone and its outlying stations and cabins. The outlying ments addressed the very question the military needed posts were “neither creditable nor satisfactory,” he wrote. to ask itself: what was its future in the park? “If the sub Arguing for the construction of permanent structures, stations are to be permanent in this park,” he remarked, he recommended relocating and possibly reducing the “it is strongly recommended that a portion of ground number of the fifteen stations.121 Thumb and Fountain for each station be set aside and allotted specially for should be relief—not permanent—stations, he believed, the use of the military, in order that there may be a and Riverside should be relocated to the West Entrance permanency as to these locations.” “If it is the policy of of the park. In regard to the appearance of the stations, he the War Department to maintain troops in the Yellow- argued that they should fit in with their surroundings and stone National Park,” he chided, “an adequate allotment “have a uniform, artistic, and dignified appearance.”122 should be made for a riding hall, stable for pack train, Shortly thereafter, in October 1911, the inspec- machine gun platoon and barracks for teamsters and tor general reported that “each of the Outlying Stations packers; also suitable ground at sub-stations should be of the Loop” should have “buildings and shelter, of an declared part of the military reservation and allotment appropriate design in keeping with other buildings of made for constructing suitable and creditable habita- the park . . . in place of the improvised and unsightly tions for men and animals.”125 Just how permanent the shacks now used for the purpose.” Each of those stations military presence would be remained at issue, however. should be “so enlarged that . . . there should be a kitchen Permanence required an allotment and, furthermore, a and dining room, properly screened against flies,” and commitment. at least 16 men should be comfortably accommodated The army’s commitment to the post was also ques- with the necessary buildings: “a bathroom, horse equip- tioned by Colonel J. L. Chamberlain, serving as inspector ment storeroom, a shelter that will accommodate at general in 1913. He complained that soldiers on duty at least 25 animals, a shed that will accommodate at least the soldier stations were not warm enough in the winter,

Administration in Turmoil 65 and recommended that quilts be used instead of army housed at the soldier stations without cost.129 blankets, which the inspector had found to be inadequate In 1914, the Bureau of Fisheries completed a one- in very cold weather, no matter how many were used. and-one-half-story log residence on Columbine Creek, Furthermore, men working under such conditions “at along with a bungalow and a frame barn to house four points beyond touch with the post should be provided horses and sufficient storage for grain and hay near their with a double outfit of special clothing except the coat: hatchery in the Lake Hotel area. As officials recognized that is, with two mackintoshes instead of one and two that the hatchery was becoming an attraction for many pairs of socks.”126 It is hard to believe that for 17 years travelers, the bureau improved its lawn and tidied up soldiers working at these posts were not given more than fallen timber and debris. The bureau also devoted one pair of socks. considerable time to explaining the plant’s operation to The fish hatchery was also improved during this interested tourists. “[T]he workings of the plant have period, as the park was still considered the world’s most become a matter of interest to so many tourists as to important source for black-spotted (today’s Yellow- require at times the services of one of the attendants stone cutthroat) trout eggs. In 1913, the Department constantly in showing them around,” wrote Brett in his of Commerce constructed a 34' × 60' fish hatchery annual report.130 near the Yellowstone Lake outlet. The shingle-covered, Other miscellaneous administrative facilities hewn-log building was furnished with modern equip- constructed during this period included an addition to ment capable of eyeing 30,000,000 eggs, and a loft for the Lamar Valley Buffalo Ranch, and several checking use as quarters and, once other proposed buildings were stations. The buffalo ranch received a new building in constructed, as storage. About 400' upstream, a small 1915, when park employees constructed a log home, dam was constructed across a creek, with a 12" wooden with addition, near the mouth of Rose Creek for the stave pipe installed to draw water. In late summer, a 14' buffalo keeper. This one-story house had a dining room, × 30' quarters and mess building with a 10' × 12' ell in living room, and three bedrooms, with a brick chimney the back was constructed at Clear Creek, a tributary on in its center. A one-story addition with another brick the east shore of Yellowstone Lake. This building, con- chimney was built along the front. The building’s in- structed from local timber and finished with drop sid- terior was finished with beaver board, and its roof was ing, was used by the employees “taking fish spawn from shingled.131 Because the park was opened to automobiles Clear and Cub creeks.”127 Permission was also granted to on August 1, 1915, the crew of the engineer officer (of construct buildings similar to the ones at Clear Creek at the Army Corps of Engineers) constructed three check- a site farther south, near Columbine Creek on the lake’s ing stations for automobiles: one at Madison Junction, east bank. The secretary of the interior’s office reminded one at Dunraven Pass, and one at the West Entrance. the secretary of commerce that the buildings must “be Until more checking stations could be constructed, the of a permanent and sightly character.”128 Army Corps of Engineers’ road crew buildings at Beaver In the early spring of 1913, the U.S. Geological Lake and at DeLacy Creek were used for this purpose. Survey began to collect data about the streams in the Brett used allotments from park revenues to fund the park. By September, four gauging stations had been project. At the West Entrance, workers built a 14' × 14' erected—one each on the Madison River near West Yel- log building with “tarred paper and graveled roof” at a lowstone, Montana; the Gibbon River at Wylie Lunch cost of approximately $200. At “the north end of Dun- Station; the Yellowstone River above the Upper Falls; and raven Pass about 11 miles from Canyon Junction,” they the South Fork of the Snake River at the south boundary. constructed a similar building, but only costing $100. At all except the Snake River station, a vertical staff gauge Finally, they erected a 14' × 28' log building at Madison was installed; the Snake River station had an overhanging Junction about fourteen miles from the west boundary chain gauge. All except the Gibbon River station were at a cost of approximately $250.132 The checking stations located near soldier stations, so that soldiers could make are no longer standing. daily recordings. The Gibbon River station, which was In addition to constructing administrative facili- located just below the bridge at the Terrace Road cross- ties, park officials considered it their responsibility to ing, was read by a Wylie company employee; the gauge improve the park’s trail system as well. For example, was relocated at the time of the bridge’s construction during the summer of 1907, soldiers built an outhouse in late August 1913. Occasionally, hydrographers were and horse railings on Mount Washburn and replaced

66 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” the old wooden signs scattered around the park with parks, and drafted preliminary plans for such develop- approximately 600 new enameled steel signs affixed ment; he also designed the first uniforms for the new to iron stakes set in cement. Other improvements for civilian park rangers.136 visitor safety and enjoyment included “Platforms for Daniels influenced the design of administrative accommodation of tourists getting out of coaches . . . facilities in national parks as well. Even if his ideas built at Norris, Mud Geyser, Upper Yellowstone Falls, were not put into practice during his tenure with the Inspiration Point, and at the Great Falls and Kepplers Department of the Interior, they remained on record [sic] Cascade; Stairways were built in connection with to influence later NPS plans. First, Daniels believed the two latter,” wrote Young in 1907. Many toilets that development in the parks should take the form were also built throughout the park. Young noted that of planned “villages.” As the number of visitors grew all improvements were stained “to harmonize with the in the national parks, Daniels claimed, a “community surroundings.”133 ceases to be a camp; it becomes a village. . . . It has mu- The idea of harmonizing buildings with their sur- nicipal problems . . . [and] will demand some sort of a roundings in Yellowstone was first associated with the civic plan in order to properly take care of the people U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1880s. It became who visit.”137 Second, he argued, buildings in the parks an institutionalized practice in national parks around should have a common architectural theme. According the turn of the twentieth century, when landscape ar- to Linda McClelland, “Daniels’s efforts . . . established chitects—professionals who made it their business and the concept of an architectural scheme whereby a type mission to create or preserve park-like landscapes, and of architecture is determined [in Daniels’s own words] had previously been involved primarily with private ‘in light of a careful study of the best arrangement of the estates—became more interested in working in the buildings and for picturesqueness.’”138 Daniels did not public arena. As the nation devoted more of its time design any villages for Yellowstone, but his experience in and resources to its public parks, landscape designers Yosemite and his plans for Glacier, Mount Rainier, and were called upon more frequently to address conflicts Crater Lake national parks were important contributions between built and natural environments in the public to national park landscape architecture. sphere. In fact, landscape architects like Frederick Law The 1916 annual meeting of the American Society Olmsted, Jr., were instrumental in the development of of Landscape Architects was of signal importance for the NPS, and after the agency was created, played an the national parks. Much of what was said underscored essential role in shaping the national park idea—namely, the dual—and potentially contradictory—mandate the preservation of national parks for the benefit and to protect the parks and to open them up for the en- enjoyment of the public. joyment of the public. The resolutions passed at the Landscape architect Mark Daniels, appointed conference foreshadowed how important landscape general superintendent and landscape engineer for all architects would be to the process of developing—also national parks in 1914, was the first of his profession to called “improving”—the parks while protecting their be officially associated with the national parks.134 His scenic values. “The need has long been felt not only for career with the still-evolving NPS was not lengthy, but more adequate protection of the surpassing beauty of it did have a lasting impact. Central to his vision was those primeval landscapes,” one resolution stated, “but the belief that any national park development should also for rendering this landscape beauty more readily be planned in a comprehensive manner, and that such enjoyable through construction in these parks of certain plans should be drawn so that they would “suit . . . not necessary roads and buildings for the accommodation only topographic features, but all the various physical of visitors in a way to bring the minimum of injury to conditions.” Scenery, after all, was a crucial part of na- these primeval landscapes.” The conference resolutions tional parks, he argued, and it had to be preserved: “the clearly advocated the use of landscape architects in this scenery or natural phenomena are of such a character process. James Sturgis Pray, who cautioned against the to be largely educational,” he claimed, and it was the “over-exploitation” of the parks, reminded conference educational nature of this scenery that made national attendees to heed the words of Frederick Law Olmsted, parks important. Scenery, Daniels believed, would lead Jr., (son of landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, the “mental horizon” of visitors to be “broadened materi- who had created Central Park and authored a plan ally.”135 Daniels advocated orderly development of the for Yosemite Park in 1865), who was instrumental in

Administration in Turmoil 67 drafting the National Park Service Organic Act: March 29th [1911],” noted one inspector, “the bread baked in field bakery was not of best quality, showing The National Parks are set apart primarily in that bakers need practice in this work.”140 “Many men order to preserve to the people for all time the had dirty breeches,” and “Four men[’s] collar ornaments opportunity of a peculiar kind of enjoyment and were not properly worn,” observed another. While such recreation, not measurable in economic terms and comments might seem insignificant, they revealed con- to be obtained only from the remarkable scenery cerns that soldiers at the post were not being trained which they contain,—scenery of those primeval effectively. Some inspectors identified more serious types which are in most parts of the world rapidly issues. “The deployment into line of skirmishes was vanishing for all eternity before the increased poor,” commented one inspector. “The failure to [use thoroughness of the economic use of the land. the clock figures to indicate the position of the enemy] In the National Parks direct economic returns, resulted in many men aiming at wrong target.” “When if any, are properly the by-products; and even the command ‘charge’ was given, the men broke badly,” rapidity and efficiency in making them accessible was another criticism.141 Inspector J. L. Chamberlain to the people, although of great importance, are wrote, “In the exercise for fire control and fire discipline wholly secondary to the one dominant purpose the command did not demonstrate careful training and of preserving essential esthetic qualities of their efficiency or a full appreciation of the true meaning of scenery unimpaired as a heritage to the infinite the terms.”142 numbers of the generations to come.139 Was excelling in military training while protecting the park too much to ask of the men? Was one actually In the years after 1916, landscape architects would detrimental to the other? Many commentators felt that become integral to the design and planning of the built the two tasks did not complement one another and, environment in national parks, particularly in regard to in fact, interfered with each other. “The command is structures, campgrounds, roads, and roadside kiosks. regarded as efficient,” cautioned one inspector, “but its training is not what it would be if nearly all of its drill season were not necessarily used in patrol work as park Policies to Protect the Park’s Treasures policemen.”143 “The garrison has been employed exten- sively in road work in the park,” complained Inspector The policy issues of concern between 1907 and Chamberlain. “Beside being detrimental to military 1916 recalled those of the two previous decades: pro- instruction and training, such employment I believe to tecting wildlife (especially game species and those in be improper and unwarranted.”144 danger of extinction); managing people around wildlife; Another problem was the issue of morale: service responding to fire; planning campground management; at Fort Yellowstone was not for everyone. “There have and informing visitors about, while at the same time been a large number of desertions in this park,” wrote protecting, the park’s natural wonders. Unfortunately, Commanding General Maus, “and the duty here does the challenges involved with using soldiers to manage not appear to be as popular as it should be.” “If men were and police a national park proved to be an impediment properly selected, and their accommodations improved, to progress in these areas. In the last decade of military I do not believe there would be desertions,” he added.145 management of Yellowstone, this problem reached its Inspector Chamberlain also noted the reluctance of “a apex. considerable [number] of men” to be posted at the fort. What had been clear to Major Moses Harris at the Many were there against their wishes, he reported.146 beginning of the military era was even clearer to lead- Only “a selected class of men,” the inspectors noted, ers during the army’s last decade of park management: who had expressed interest in the park, were able to namely, that accomplishing the dual tasks of military withstand the hardships posed by the post. Furthermore, training and park policing put too much strain on the Maus noted, the troops stationed in the park really troops. Inspectors general often noted examples of this should be “show troops.” “Many thousands of promi- problem in their lists of “irregularities and deficiencies.” nent citizens, not only of our country, but of foreign Some comments were relatively easy to respond to and countries, annually visit the park, and are escorted on rectify. “In practical test in field at Gardiner, Montana, their way by details of men, who also are seen patrolling

68 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #127731 the precedent of encouraging the perpetuation of some species while discouraging, and often killing, others. Favored species included bison, deer, elk, and pronghorn (called “antelope” by most observers of the day), and the policy of feeding these ungulate populations continued. Wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, and most other preda- tors were deemed unworthy of such protection. During the spring of 1910, a meadow at the North Entrance was plowed, under plans of returning it to an alfalfa field. Because it would have taken about two years of plowing and cultivating to prepare the field, however, the ground was seeded with spring wheat. The field produced 80 tons of wheat hay for use in winter 1911. By that year, the meadow was overrun with foxtail and weeds. A 40- acre meadow near the Lamar Valley Buffalo Ranch was plowed in 1909, and seeded with timothy, which also provided about 80 tons of hay.148 In 1910, an irrigation system was constructed in the 40-acre meadow and in 149 Haying operation near Gardiner. 1912. an adjoining field of several hundred acres. More and more park lands were converted into hay fields as acting

YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #77 superintendents attempted to keep up with increases in the herd of “tame” buffalo and the elk herds that ate the hay intended to sustain the pronghorn population during hard winters. Clearing, grubbing (digging up of roots), breaking, and seeding of meadow land “should be done each succeeding year for four years, in order to secure sufficient winter supply of hay for a constantly increasing herd,” wrote Superintendent Young in 1908.150 During 1915, the field near the North Entrance arch was disked (worked with a disk harrow), reseeded, and dragged. Two hay cuttings were obtained from the field, producing about 120 tons; almost 220 tons of hay were cut from the fields near the buffalo ranch. With the increase of the bison herd to 276 animals, it was necessary to add more irrigated, seeded meadows to those existing Bison corral at Mammoth. 1903. near the ranch. That land was targeted for seeding and irrigation later in 1915 or in the spring of 1916.151 Fencing was used to protect the buffalo ranch area in all directs and at the hotels, and are therefore under in Lamar Valley, to keep cattle and dogs out of the park, prominent observation.” The post needed a better class and to keep antelope from leaving the park in winter. of men than those who often found themselves serving An old wire fence that extended westward along the at the stations—the “recruits who have not had time to north boundary from the junction of the Yellowstone be trained or disciplined.”147 The only way to solve this and Gardner rivers was responsible for preserving the problem was to separate the duties and create a corps of antelope herd, Young believed.152 In 1914, approximately civilian rangers to handle issues related to park manage- four miles of fence was replaced at the buffalo ranch and ment. Thus, between 1907 and 1916, a few civilians were from the North Entrance arch eastward to the Gardner added to the ranks—but the process, as noted above, was River. In the latter case, 2,000 feet of a five-foot steel frustratingly slow. picket fence were built under contract.153 With respect to wildlife issues, the military followed At the buffalo ranch, the herd continued to thrive

Administration in Turmoil 69 and increase, numbering 276 animals by 1916.154 Start- Park officials had more complex sensibilities about ing in 1908, around 15 older bulls were transported each bears. Since the 1880s, visitors had been enjoying the spring from the Lamar herd to a corral at Mammoth, spectacle provided by bears feeding at various garbage where they were put on display for tourists as a “show dumps around the park. But as bears became more accus- herd.”155 “This was done for two reasons,” wrote Major tomed to people, and thus less afraid of them, they also Benson: “First, to remove the bulls from the herd in became more destructive of property, and even danger- which the calves were present, as the bulls were con- ous. “They frequently become so tame,” wrote Benson tinually fighting and endangering the lives of the calves; in his annual report for 1910, “that they do not hesitate second, in order that the visiting tourists might be able to destroy tents or go through windows into houses to to view them.” “Probably 10,000 tourists drove to the secure food, and sometimes refuse to be driven away.”160 buffalo corral this summer [1909] in order to see these But because the creatures were not considered harmful buffalo, it being the main feature of the stop at Mam- to the park’s beloved game animals, most acting super- moth Springs,” he added.156 intendents of the time did not consider killing a bear Mountain lions, coyotes, and later, wolves, con- unless it had a serious conflict with humans. In 1910, sidered harmful to calves of elk, deer, buffalo, and for example, after a bear bit and scratched a member of antelope, were vigorously hunted and killed. In 1907, a road-sprinkling crew near Excelsior Geyser, and after Young wrote that the “mountain lions have been almost “many requests” to “kill some of these vicious bear” were exterminated,” allowing him to sell the pack of dogs used received from visiting parties who suffered bear-related for hunting them in 1908.157 Several packs of wolves property damage, officials considered doing away with were seen on the elk ranges in 1915, and as they were overly “friendly” bears. But, as Benson wrote in his annu- considered dangerous to elk calves, Brett wrote that al report, “this was not resorted to.”161 In 1911, although “[a]rrangements [were] being made to systematically two grizzlies and three black bears were killed because hunt” them.158 As many as 270 coyotes were killed one they were considered “dangerous to life and property,” year, and in 1916, U.S. Biological Survey employees park officials also completed investigations of one or two killed 180 coyotes, 12 wolves, and 4 lions.159 cases wherein men who became “too bold” with bears were attacked and severely injured. Because park officials

YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #9105 determined that the bears in question had been defend- ing their cubs, the bears were not blamed.162 By 1913, however, the number of bears feeding at dump sites was alarmingly high. For example, “[t]hirty- two grizzlies,” wrote Brett, “were noted at one time on the garbage dumps at the canyon on August 20” of that year. As the number of bear–human conflicts rose, so too did the number of “necessary” bear killings; thus, officials killed five bears deemed “dangerous to life and a menace to property” in 1913, and “six black bears and two grizzlies” in 1916.163 The less-than-hygienic conditions at the dump sites were a source of concern for Mark Daniels, general superintendent and landscape engineer of the national parks. After visiting Yellowstone in 1914, Daniels suggested to the secretary of the interior that perhaps “some method of bringing the bears to the bear dumps could be devised which would accomplish the ends desired without making the dump a most un- sanitary and filthy looking hole.”164 Many years later, Daniels’s recommendation was incorporated into the elaborate infrastructure associated with the bear feeding ground at Otter Creek (see Chapter 6). Bear feeding at Lake Hotel. 1910. Another important wildlife development during

70 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” this period was the purposeful introduction of non- Prior to these innovations, park officials could do native species by park officials. More than 310 million little more than hope for both a wet year and responsible native and non-native fish were introduced to the park’s campers who followed the park rule to extinguish all waters from 1881 to 1955, largely to please visitors who campfires. These were years when superintendents felt wished to fish in areas that were historically fishless.165 In “indebted” to frequent rains, and at the mercy of dry 1916, for instance, “seventeen thousand eastern brook weather and “frequent violent electric storms.”172 In trout were planted” in the park.166 Park officials also 1907—a wet year, as luck would have it—Young asked toyed with the idea of introducing non-native mammals for $30,000 to pay for removal of slash and dead timber to the park. In 1907, for example, just before he left his within 150 feet of the park’s roads. He also circulated command at Yellowstone, Major Pitcher received a let- the following policy edict: ter from Interior Secretary James Garfield approving his plan to procure “white goats” from British Columbia or Hereafter within the boundaries of this park, elsewhere, and to “domesticate” them in the park.167 Su- whenever a tree—dead or alive—is felled for perintendent Young, who pursued Pitcher’s “white goat” telegraph or telephone construction, trailway, idea fervently, if unsuccessfully, also had high hopes of roadway, or any right of way, for fuel, for build- introducing this non-native species, and managing the ing, bridging, or for any purpose whatever, the animals in the same fashion as the bison were managed, brush and tops must be lopped and piled in a such that, as Young put it, “the park herds will in due cleared space, and—if conditions are favorable time restore some of the progeny to the former near-by for burning without danger of the fire spread- haunts of their kind.” Young also sought to “improve” ing—will be burned.173 the park’s wildlife spectacle. “Only such species of ani- mals and birds as were found in the park when originally During the dry year of 1910, Acting Superinten- laid out and set aside exist here to-day,” he mused, in- dent Benson sent troops out twice daily to patrol roads correctly, in 1907. “With intelligent management and and campsites for any sign of fire.174 While Chief Clerk comparatively little expense,” he continued, “a greater Ucker was inspecting the park that summer, several variety of birds and animals could be successfully added major fires occurred, leading him to recommend that and propagated within the park, and under the protec- a comprehensive system of trails and roads leading off tion of a specially trained body of scouts such animals the main road be developed, and that more money be as buffalo, that have been exterminated, and mountain dedicated for the system’s development.175 That fall, 25 sheep and antelope, that are rapidly being exterminated miles “of new trails or fire lanes” were built in the park’s in the United States outside the park, will undoubtedly southeast corner, and during the summer of 1911, “simi- increase in the park.”168 Pitcher’s and Young’s idea of lar passageways were built from Snake River Station, on introducing goats into the park survived as late as 1915, the south line, west to near the southwest corner, thence as park historians Lee Whittlesey and Paul Schullery north along the west boundary line and northeast via have observed.169 “The general mood of these and other Summit Lake to Upper Basin.” As Colonel Brett noted, recommendations was that more was better—that nature the purpose of these trails was to facilitate easier move- could be enriched, indeed improved upon, by the judi- ment of scouts and patrols in the course of protecting cious actions of humans,” they noted.170 game and preventing wildfires. When Brett’s patrols Along with new wildlife policies came new policies found campfires burning, they either extinguished them regarding fire control and management. In the 1910s, in themselves or, if they could locate the guilty parties, addition to the park’s basic policy of regulating campers’ marched them back to put them out.176 fires and patrolling camping areas daily—sometimes While the summer season of 1912 was relatively twice daily during dry and busy summers—two new wet, Brett realized that all years would not be so good. developments arose: the establishment of a series of He therefore asked for funds for “[f]orty-eight miles of trails and roads for fire management, and a cooperative additional firelanes” for fiscal year 1913 (no new fire agreement between the departments of Interior, Agri- lanes or trails were constructed in 1912 “[o]wing to lack culture, and War, drawn up on August 14, 1912, “for of funds”). He also gave credit, in his annual report, to the prevention and suppression of forest fires along the the newly created agreement between the departments park boundary.”171 of Interior, Agriculture, and War that intended to

Administration in Turmoil 71 create “an efficient system of fire patrols in connection in an out-of-the-way place without pits, had to hide all with the rangers in charge of the forests adjoining the refuse “where it [would] not be offensive to the eye.”184 park.”177 In 1913, the army built 58 miles of new trails New camps housing park road crews, called road camps, or fire lanes “along the western boundary line and from were established in 1907 at Canyon, Trout Creek, Bea- Gallatin Soldier Station to headquarters via Sportsman ver Lake, Beryl Spring, the Upper Geyser Basin, West Lake.” Such trails made patrols of the newly organized Thumb, Excelsior Geyser, and near the Lake Hotel. Tent districts assigned to various soldier stations much easier. floors, side walls, and frames to support canvas covers Soldiers made caches of fire-fighting tools at each station were installed, as well as mangers and feed boxes.185 and coordinated their efforts with U.S. Forest Service When General Young took over the superin- employees.178 In 1914, a new fire lane was constructed tendency from Major Pitcher, he continued Pitcher’s through timber from the Snake River station east toward program of campsite cleanups and enforced the rules the southeast corner of the park. Several other extensive regarding “camps” that previous acting superintendents fire lane projects were undertaken that year, which, as it had devised. Furthermore, Young noticed the effects turned out, was a very dry one.179 Acting Superintendent of campsites on the sanitary condition of the park. To Brett reported that both road crews and crews assigned to prevent contamination of the Fort Yellowstone and construction of fire lanes were called upon to help fight Mammoth Hotel water supply, he closed Swan Lake the numerous serious fires burning in the park. Two of Flat, which drained into Glen Creek, to camping and those fires qualified as boundary fires, allowing the new grazing.186 multi-departmental agreement to be activated.180 The Clement Ucker’s visit to the park in the summer of summer of 1915 was unusually wet, allowing fire lane 1910 convinced Young that sanitation remained an un- crews to complete the fire lane projects started the year solved problem. He recognized the need to hire someone before and repair nearly all the established fire lanes in to assess the park’s garbage disposal and sewage needs.187 the park.181 By the end of 1915, more than 150 miles of While this recommendation was not acted upon until fire trails had been built.182 1913, a more thorough inspection of camps was ordered As might be expected, many of the fires with which later that summer, and suggestions were made that fall park officials had to deal were ignited by careless campers for improving their upkeep. Acting Superintendent or, in dry years, by campfires that had been extinguished Benson asked Major Wallace DeWitt, a surgeon with the correctly but continued to smolder underground.183 Medical Corps, to inspect the “temporary camps”—those Campers, careless or not, were having a big impact on not operated by concessioners—and report back with the park. In addition to building campfires, they created recommendations. DeWitt found that sites at the fol- garbage, required toilet facilities (called “earth closets” in lowing locations seemed to have been in use year after those days), demanded improvements for their comfort, year: at Mammoth Hot Springs, near the power plant; and necessitated government intervention to protect park near Apollinaris Spring; on the freight road from Foun- land from overuse. Throughout the last decade of mili- tain Station to Excelsior Geyser; at Lake, one-half mile tary presence in the park, several camps (not yet called south of the soldier station in the meadow across the campgrounds)—first for travelers by horse and later road; at Snake River station; and on Tower Creek above for those traveling by automobile—were erected, and Tower Fall. The upkeep of these camps was poor, he policies designed to improve sanitation and minimize reported. Consequently, he insisted that campers travel- campers’ impact on the land were developed. ing the main road use only designated camping places. Earlier in Yellowstone’s military management He furthermore suggested that the government provide period, concessioners had operated the only permanent signs marking specific areas of a camp—latrines, dumps, camps. Travelers, however, were allowed to set up camp stock-watering spots, lavatories, and drinking water. Fi- wherever they desired, as long as they abided by the nally, he recommended that park officials post rules and rules and regulations established by the military and regulations governing camping at each camp and hand Department of the Interior in 1897, during Captain them to each camping party at park entrances.188 Erwin’s administration. Camp had to be made at least Subsequent acting superintendents also contrived 100 feet from a traveled road, and campsites had to be solutions to the sanitation problem.189 In 1912, for ex- “thoroughly cleaned before they [were] abandoned.” ample, Colonel Brett came up with two ways to improve Pits were provided for all trash; anyone making camp sanitation concerns in the park. First, he had medical

72 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #31927

Visitors posed in front of tents at Wylie camp. 1912. officers stationed at Fort Yellowstone serve as sanitary interior, “is a very important one, which must be met inspectors for the entire park, including soldier sta- by some general plan in the near future, as park travel tions and all concession facilities.190 Second, he devised increases.”193 Worried as he was about increased pressure a system whereby a regularly scheduled cleaning team from campers on the park’s sanitation systems, Brett of two men attended to garbage disposal and upkeep could only watch as tourist numbers ballooned. Between of the earth closets. This represented the beginning of 1904 and 1915, the total number of park visitors grew restroom maintenance in Yellowstone. The two men, from fewer than 14,000 to more than 50,000 annually.194 with their single team and wagon, operated along the Brett realized that existing conditions were not sustain- tourist route during August and September. Brett was able. His need for help was confirmed when Interior so pleased with their work that he planned for the sys- Secretary Lane sent out the department’s chemist, R. tem to be used “hereafter” during three months of the B. Dole, who after making “a very thorough sanitary year—July, August, and September.191 The system was inspection,” assented that conditions were awful.195 implemented during summer months for the remaining In 1914, the Shaw & Powell Camping Company years of military control of the park. increased the number of sleeping tents and other facilities In 1913, the Wylie Permanent Camping Company connected with their camps to meet the needs of more established a new camp near the East Entrance, and a and more tourists.196 Brett also noted in his annual report second concessioner, the Shaw & Powell Camping Com- that the Department of the Interior was taking measures pany, which had operated in the park since 1898, was “to prevent the pollution of the drinking water used by authorized to established camps in the park, as well. The visitors to the park.” “[I]t is important,” he emphasized, latter company started that year to build the necessary “that [measures] be put in[to] operation before the fine structures—“kitchen, dining room, storehouse, laundry, health record of the park is broken.” That summer, wagon sheds, stables, blacksmith shop, granary, bath- General Superintendent Daniels made what Brett called house, etc.”—at “Willow Creek, near Gibbon Falls, on “his first annual inspection.”197 Nez Perce Creek near Fountain Station, Upper Geyser As mentioned earlier, the summer of 1915 marked Basin, West Thumb of Lake, Grand Canyon, and near the entrance of automobiles and other gasoline-pow- Tower Fall.”192 ered vehicles into the park. To meet the needs of these Sanitation in the park continued to concern new visitors, Brett called for the establishment of three Colonel Brett that year. “The question of sanitation “special sanitary camps” to be built at Mammoth Hot and stream pollution,” he wrote to the secretary of the Springs, Upper Geyser Basin, and the Canyon area.

Administration in Turmoil 73 These “camps,” proposed to be established specifically grates were provided at each camp. Running water and for those traveling in private automobiles with their own electricity were provided only at the Mammoth camp.200 camping equipment, were to be provided with “a few conveniences” and located near the points of interest, Conclusion but at some distance from existing, concessioner-run permanent camps and hotels. At a time of tight budgets, The last decade of military involvement in Yel- Brett could easily rationalize such an expense: “[A]s the lowstone was marked by major developments in park automobile tickets of passage, for which a charge is made infrastructure and protection policies. Also, as the job by the department, are a source of considerable revenue, of protecting the park from poaching was replaced with it seems that an expense for this purpose is warranted,” the task of “guiding and policing tourists,” military he wrote in his annual report.198 leaders sought to escape the yoke of park management. In January 1916, Brett sent Interior Secretary Lane Concurrently, conservationists and the Interior Depart- a map marked with four proposed sites for the new au- ment lobbied for the return of Yellowstone and all na- tomobile camps: the three previously suggested locations tional parks to civilian management. These movements and one at the Yellowstone Lake outlet. The secretary’s culminated in the creation of the NPS on August 25, office requested an estimate for a fifth site at Tower Fall, 1916. The mandate and philosophy of the new bureau which Brett did not recommend, and asked Brett to were drafted by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., as part of contact the mayors of Medford and Ashland, Oregon, the National Park Service Act. “[The NPS’s] fundamental regarding their automobile camps, which were thought purpose,” wrote Olmsted, “is to conserve the scenery and to be exemplary. In April of that year, Brett was notified the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein that $1,500 had been approved for constructiing camps and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such at his four original locations. The assistant secretary manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired requested that the campgrounds be completed by the be- for the enjoyment of future generations.”201 The task for ginning of the 1916 season.199 Each camp served twelve the next generation of Yellowstone administrators, now automobiles and their passengers, and consisted of a large statutorily enacted, would be to guide the development pole and frame shed (60' × 32', 8' high at the eaves) that and improvement of park facilities in a way that helped served as a car shelter and was roofed with 28-gauge cor- visitors enjoy the park’s natural beauty and scenic features rugated painted steel roofing and divided into six double while at the same time preserving this beauty and these stalls. Ladies’ and men’s toilets, dry wood, and cooking scenic features from exploitation.

74 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” CHAPTER FIVE

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher”

The National Park Service in Yellowstone National Park 1917–1929

The creation of the National Park Service on Au- public that it [was] worth while to spend more than five gust 25, 1916, brought major changes to Yellowstone. or six days in [this] great playground.” To that end, much Reorganization of the park’s management from military was done each year to entice the public to visit and stay to civilian governance, although not actually complete in the nation’s oldest national park. “Yellowstone Park until the end of 1918, allowed the administration once has tremendous recreational advantages that are only more to focus on Superintendent Norris’s three original just beginning to be appreciated,” wrote Horace M. Al- pillars of park management: protection, improvement, bright, who as assistant to Stephen Mather, the director and scientific study and education. Before the new civil- of the NPS in 1917, stood in Mather’s stead as acting ian administration could begin to manage, however, it director when Mather was unable to assume the duties needed to craft a management team and ranger force. of director due to illness. While dreams of “the establish- Once this force was in place, the administration was ment of golf links and tennis courts” would fall by the ready to take on the challenges of the park’s fifth decade. wayside as the park’s focus shifted from recreation alone And challenges there were. to recreation and education, other projects took shape.1 Between 1917 and 1929, numerous issues con- The park’s free, or “public,” automobile camps were fronted the new administration. First, Yellowstone’s improved and expanded, and museums and educational civilian managers had to accommodate record numbers institutions were built. Landscape architects continued of a new kind of visitor—one who toured the park by to inform park managers’ decisions about how to design automobile. Second, in this new era of park reorganiza- Yellowstone’s cultural landscape. tion, any new accommodations or other improvements had to harmonize with the park’s beauty, not detract from it. Third, in addition to accommodating new tourists, The New Decision-Makers the park’s new civilian managers had to educate them. While the park superintendent was no longer alone in The first two years of Yellowstone’s new civilian trying to protect, improve, and educate—the NPS now administration were made especially difficult for several coordinated measures and provided assistance to the reasons: Congress failed to appropriate money for the individual parks—the superintendent was responsible newly created NPS, there was political unrest in Montana for making day-to-day decisions and responding to the over the removal of troops from the park, and wartime needs of the public. conditions prevailed across the United States following Much of the NPS’s work toward improving the the nation’s entry into World War I on April 6, 1917. park for visitors and protecting its resources was guided According to Aubrey Haines, the park was fortunate to by the idea that the park was to become an “all-summer have Chester Allinson Lindsley, who had worked as a resort.” The goal was to “convince the general traveling civilian clerk in the park since 1894, to assume the role

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 75 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #19200 Albright was superintendent of Yellowstone National Park from June 28, 1919 until January 12, 1929, at which point he took over from Stephen Mather as direc- tor of the NPS. He retired from the Park Service in 1933, to become general manager and director of the United States Potash Company, but retained an active interest in NPS affairs until he died on March 28, 1987.3

A Management Structure and Infrastructure The 1916 National Park Service Act authorized civilian administration of the nation’s parks. In line with Superintendent Horace M. Albright. 1920. this decision, the secretary of the interior authorized removal of the military detail from Yellowstone National Park and creation of a civilian ranger force. Thus on of park “supervisor” and guide the park through the first October 1, 1916, with the “hearty cooperation” of the period after the transfer to civilian administration. War Department, the Department of the Interior took Born on January 25, 1872, Lindsley was hired by over Fort Yellowstone. The troops stationed there were Acting Superintendent George Anderson to serve as civil- sent for duty at the Mexican border. 4 The new ranger ian clerk at Fort Yellowstone in the autumn of 1894. “He force—“composed partly of scouts long connected with served in that capacity under all the succeeding military the administration of the park, and partly of certain superintendents,” wrote Haines, “providing continuity soldiers who, because of their special qualifications and of administrative activities (which would otherwise intense interest in the development of the park, were have suffered from the frequent and complete chang- discharged from the Army to join [the NPS]”—was on ing of the detachments stationed in the Park).” From duty through the winter of 1916–1917, but then had October 1, 1916, until June 28, 1919, Lindsley served to “disband because of adverse legislation.”5 first as acting supervisor then as acting superintendent The “adverse legislation” was a 1917 sundry civil of the new civilian administration of the park. Once bill that purposely did not provide any funds for protec- Horace Marden Albright was appointed superintendent tion of the park. This omission necessitated “the recall in 1919, Lindsley became assistant superintendent. In of the Cavalry to the park” and the “regarrisoning” of 1922, Lindsley transferred to the Post Office, where he Fort Yellowstone.6 Congress, in 1917, “on the facts then served as postmaster for the park until his retirement before it,” decided “that Fort Yellowstone ought not to in 1935.2 have been abandoned by the War Department, and that Horace Albright was one of Yellowstone’s most it could be better protected by soldiers than by rangers.” important shapers. Born in Bishop, California, on In fact, local residents, resenting the loss of income they January 6, 1890, he graduated from the University of expected would result from the departure of the army, California’s law school in 1912. In June 1913, he became had encouraged Montana’s congressional delegation, in a confidential clerk to the secretary of the interior and the person of Senator Thomas H. Walsh, to take before worked on the creation of a national parks bureau. After Congress a petition to “again police the Yellowstone completing graduate work in 1914, Albright worked as National Park with officers and soldiers of the regular assistant attorney and close advisor for Stephen Mather, army to the end that it shall be well protected.”7 Thus, who was then “assistant to the secretary responsible for 450 men belonging to the Seventh U.S. Cavalry re- the national parks.” Haines wrote that Albright played turned to the park and again took up residence in the “a considerable, perhaps even crucial role in the passage fort facilities. of the National Park Service Act of 1916, and as assistant This halting transition from military to civilian director (and acting director in 1917–1918) of the new leadership created more problems in the development of organization, he shepherded it through the initial years.” an administrative force and ranger corps in Yellowstone

76 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” than it did in other parks. In 1917 and half of 1918, the interior himself to demand that the park’s adminis- for example, the Department of the Interior controlled trators work “in harmony with engineers” so as not to concessioners, supervised admission of automobiles to block the proposed garage.12 First Assistant Secretary of the park, took care of wild animals, and oversaw water, the Interior Alexander Vogelsang wrote to the secretary of electric, and telephone systems in the park. The U.S. war insisting that the proposed structures “harmonize in Army Corps of Engineers oversaw all road and trail general with the appearance of the other improvements” construction, and protection of the park was “intrusted in the area, and that the Interior Department be given to the soldiers” and the War Department. Acting Super- the opportunity “to inspect and pass upon” any plans intendent Lindsley was “supposed to be the executive of and specifications.13 the park, yet he ha[d] no control over the improvement Fortunately for both the army and the NPS, the or protection of his reservation.” “He can not even open army’s return was not long-lived.14 Assisted by the of- the park at the beginning of the season,” complained ficers of the army, who were “especially anxious to rid Director Mather in 1917, “yet the Park Service is charged [themselves] of the duty of maintaining old fort Yel- by the traveling public with every failure to make condi- lowstone and providing for the protection of the park,” tions for touring satisfactory.” In all other national parks, Director Mather gathered additional data relating to except Crater Lake, the director continued, the NPS’s the “inadvisability of using troops in the protection of mandate to supervise, manage, and control the nation’s national parks, devoting considerable attention to the parks was exercised by the Interior Department alone, cost of maintaining a military force in [an] isolated post not in combination with the War Department and Army where there was no opportunity for troop drill or other Corps of Engineers.8 army work.”15 Furthermore, “public disapproval of such Acting Superintendent Lindsley wasted valu- nonmilitary use of troops when the nation was at war able time and energy negotiating with the park’s other created dissatisfaction that even a stubborn Congress controlling agencies. In January 1918, an issue arose could not overlook.”16 Thus, on July 1, 1918, troops concerning the use of officers’ quarters at the fort. In were authorized to withdraw from the park. Fort Yel- a letter to the assistant director of the NPS, Lindsley lowstone was officially turned back over to the NPS on referred to the chief of engineers as “utterly selfish” October 31, 1918, when the army left the park for the and disingenuous, as the latter tried to control all the final time. officers’ housing at Fort Yellowstone for use by his own Once the 1918 Sundry Civil Appropriations Act employees.9 Lindsley also contested the ownership of one placed the NPS “in complete control of the administra- particular building. While it was clear that the furniture tion, protection, and improvement of the park,” the in the building belonged to the Interior Department, the tense situation was relieved. Director Mather heralded building’s rightful owner was unclear. As Lindsley noted, this move as “not less important than the organization the building had been “officially invoiced to [the Interior] of the new ranger force.” To underscore his authority, he Department when the post was abandoned and [had] also made the former U.S. Engineers’ Office, also known never been officially returned.” Thus, “the question of as the “Pagoda,” constructed by Hiram Chittenden in ownership [was] in doubt,” and Lindsley felt “warranted 1903, the official headquarters of the National Park in making strenuous objections to the occupancy [by the Service in the park.17 army engineers’ office] of this building.”10 After the park was returned to civilian governance, Further, when Major Verrill, the district engineer, work began assembling its new ranger force. Compared advised Lindsley that he intended to build a “fire-proof to the large number of soldiers (450) that had been garage and certain residence quarters for members of his assigned to police and protect the park, the number of office force and engineering staff,” NPS Director Stephen assigned civilian rangers (50) was small.18 Mather made Mather asked the acting superintendent to “advise the much of the fiduciary appeal of replacing army troops District Engineer that all of the land in and about Mam- with NPS rangers: “The military force necessarily had moth Hot Springs is subject absolutely to the control of to maintain a semblance of army organization in the the Department of the Interior, and that no structures park,” he wrote, “hence its outposts were garrisoned of any character can be erected anywhere in the park with squads of men, only one or two of whom regularly except upon the authority of this Department.”11 The patrolled each district. Under the new organization, rang- issue became quite contentious, forcing the secretary of ers are assigned in pairs to districts and each is required

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 77 to do patrolling work. Thus the cost of protecting the road maintenance and construction and other physical park has been reduced enormously.”19 The new ranger improvements”; (3) the protection department, with force of 1918, “composed largely of members of the the chief ranger who was “in charge of the protection of force developed in 1916,” was efficient, cost-effective, the park, the operation of the buffalo and hay ranches, and capable of protecting the park, he emphasized. The the care of wild animals, the fighting of forest fires, and rangers—described ideally as one chief ranger, four as- similar activities”; (4) the information department, with sistant chief rangers, and 25 rangers of the first class, a park naturalist who was “in charge of the information supplemented by 25 “temporary rangers, traffic officers, office and all scientific work carried on in the park, and automobile checkers” in the summer, were “all hardy either under the Park Service or by scientists working men of the mountains, skilled in forestry, and woodcraft, in the park under authority from the Department”; (5) accustomed to the hardships of the severe winters, trained the mechanical department, with a master mechanic in the use of snowshoes and skiis [sic], and thoroughly who supervised and controlled the mechanical shops; familiar, in most cases, with the entire park area.”20 The (6) the property and transportation department, with a chief scout during the army’s last days, James McBride, master of transportation who had “charge of all freighting was appointed the first chief ranger in October 1919.21 operations”; (7) the electrical department, with a chief By 1920, a year after he became superintendent of electrician; (8) a mini-department consisting of the chief the park, Horace Albright had organized Yellowstone’s lineman in charge of the telephone lines in the park; (9) operations into ten departments: (1) the administrative the sanitation department, with a master plumber; and department, consisting of the assistant superintendent (10) the painting department, with a master painter.22 In and purchasing agent who “handle[d] matters in the 1921, Albright consolidated activities and supervision of general headquarters office . . . attending to the mul- the chief lineman, thus reducing the number of depart- titude of . . . matters naturally appertaining to a large ments to nine: Administrative, Engineering, Protection, Government office and required by the laws, rules, and Information, Mechanical, Electrical, Property/Transpor- policies governing the NPS”; (2) the engineering de- tation, Sanitation and Painting.23 partment, with a resident engineer who supervised “the By 1922, the ranger organization, which, Haines noted, stressed “the line-of-authority of a military

YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #22701 organization,” was led by Chief Ranger Samuel T. Woodring, a veteran of the Spanish–American War and former army packmaster. Woodring had only one year of ranger experience when he was promoted to chief ranger, but as Haines wrote, he was a natural leader and an able organizer.24 In 1922, Albright commented that Woodring oversaw the protection department with “great efficiency.”25 Woodring worked with three assistant chiefs (one for each of the three ranger districts: north, south, and west—by 1926 there were four assistant chiefs); from 24 to 27 park rangers (both first-class rangers—those in charge of the important stations in each district—and the permanent park rangers under the first-class rangers); and from 42 to 58 temporary rangers who served during the travel season.26 By 1925, the permanent rangers were selected on the basis of a series of civil service rules and a civil service examination. Seasonal ranger positions were filled by appointment. According to Haines, the position was so “glamorized” that a form letter was issued to warn “young men,” who anticipated “a sinecure with noth- United States Engineer Office (center), also known as the ing resembling hard work to perform,” or a “pleasant “Pagoda,” ca. 1915. vacation amid the beauties and wonders of Yellowstone

78 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Park, with very frequent trips about the park and in- park designer cannot, of course, design the mountains,” numerable dances and other diversions to occupy one’s wrote Henry Vincent Hubbard, Harvard professor of leisure hours,” and who had hopes “of making and sav- landscape architecture. “But, if he is from long and ing considerable money,” that the situation really was humble study an interpreter of natural beauty, he can otherwise.27 present the mountains to the observer effectively.”30 But The routine of a ranger’s day in the 1920s was as more and more people visited the park, and as the “sharply differentiated between a short summer season, NPS decided that educating the visiting public was a with problems created by a massive visitation, and a long priority, adding to the park’s administrative infrastructure ‘off’ season (much of it winter) in which the protection became essential. of the Park and its wildlife [was] the principal occupa- To minimize the impact of the new buildings on tion.”28 Activities in a ranger’s day included checking au- the park’s scenic and natural features, the NPS asked its tomobiles at the several entrances, patrolling for speeders, landscape engineers to build structures that harmonized informing the public about the park’s natural features, with their environment. “All of the improvements in the lecturing on subjects of interest to the public, wildlife parks must be carefully harmonized with the landscape,” management, protective patrolling, and housekeeping at NPS Director Stephen Mather wrote in 1918, “and to one of the cabins or stations during the off-season. this end engineers trained in landscape architecture and The rangers used the army’s former soldier stations fully appreciative of the necessity for maintaining the and snowshoe cabins while patrolling the park, protect- parks in their natural state must be employed to supervise ing its wildlife, and managing—helping, informing, and and carry out all improvement work. New improve- policing—its visitors. By the mid-1920s, as the park’s ments must be planned carefully and comprehensively focus on recreation was modified to include an equal in advance of execution.”31 Mather’s words fit nicely emphasis on education, the ranger’s role as educator with Secretary of the Interior Franklin Lane’s seminal under the direction of a new park naturalist grew, as NPS policy letter of 1918 (drafted by Albright during did the park’s Department of Information. The built his stint as acting director of the NPS during Mather’s environment changed, as well: community rooms, or illness). “In the construction of roads, trails, buildings, meeting places where lectures and other educational and other improvements,” the letter declared, sessions could take place, were added to the NPS’s free public automobile camps, and a series of museums was particular attention must be devoted always to built. the harmonizing of these improvements with the landscape. This is a most important item in our program of development and requires the Enhancing the Built Environment employment of trained engineers who either possess a knowledge of landscape architecture or The buildings added to the park’s administrative have a proper appreciation of the esthetic value infrastructure during the late 1910s and 1920s were of park lands. All improvements will be carried primarily snowshoe cabins, ranger stations, campground out in accordance with a preconceived plan meeting rooms, and museums. In the new civilian era, developed with special reference to the preserva- landscape engineers and landscape architects played tion of the landscape, and comprehensive plans important roles in crafting the built landscape. In 1905, for future development of the national parks on when he revised his chapter devoted to the park’s admin- an adequate scale will be prepared as funds are istrative history, Hiram Chittenden suggested that no available for this purpose.32 continuing outlay be devoted to “beautify and adorn” the park. “Nature has attended to these matters herself,” he In their studies of landscape architecture and the wrote. “The further policy of the government in regard national parks, historians Linda Flint McClelland and to the Park should be strictly negative,” he continued, Ethan Carr provided detailed discussions of the role “with the sole object of preserving it unimpaired, as its landscape architects played in the development and founders intended, for the ‘benefit and enjoyment’ of maintenance—improvement and protection—of our succeeding generations.”29 A decade later, landscape national parks. “Beginning in 1918,” according to Mc- architects agreed: “The [landscape architect as] national Clelland, the NPS hired landscape architects to “plan

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 79 and design park villages, campgrounds, roads and trails, for all plans of the concessioners must be submit- and facilities and to provide advice on issues affecting ted to him for approval as to architecture and the scenery of the parks.”33 Landscape architects not only location before they can be constructed, and he is helped parks provide access to visitors, they also helped responsible for the design of all structures of the them preserve the very scenery those visitors were seek- Service, the location of roads and other structures ing. As Carr wrote, landscape architecture was critical on the ground which will influence the appear- to “successfully develop[ing] parks in ways that would ance of the parks, ranger cabins, rest houses, assure the preservation of scenic qualities.”34 In 1917, checking stations, gateway structures, employees’ Frank Albert Waugh, a professor of landscape architec- cottages, comfort stations, forest improvement ture at Massachusetts Agricultural College, rhetorically and vista thinning, the preservation of the timber asked, who better to deal with national parks “except the along the park roads, the design of villages where men best trained in the love of the landscape and in the the popularity of the parks has made it necessary technical methods by which it alone can be conserved, to provide certain commercial institutions for restored, improved, clarified, made available and spiritu- the comfort of the tourist and the camper, the ally effective in the hearts of men and women?”35 design and location of the automobile camps, According to McClelland, landscape engineers and so on through the many ramifications of all “forged a cohesive style of naturalistic park design . . . these problems.40 rooted in the fundamental twofold philosophy, first, that landscape be preserved, and second, that all construction By all accounts, Punchard was very successful in his harmonize with nature.” This design style held to several short tenure as landscape engineer for the NPS—he died principles: “Construction was to disturb the ground as less than two and one-half years after his appointment. little as possible. Improvements were to be of native As McClelland noted, Punchard was a troubleshooter materials and rustic in character. Obtrusive development with a gift for concealing unsightliness and cleaning up was to be avoided altogether or placed in inconspicuous messes already part of the cultural landscape in older locations and screened from public view.”36 parks such as Yellowstone. The first landscape engineer appointed by Mather Punchard’s goals for cleaning up Yellowstone fol- was Charles P. Punchard, Jr. A student of landscape de- lowed his assessment of the park’s appearance during the sign at Harvard University, and a partner in his own firm, summer of 1919, and amounted to the first efforts at Punchard at the time of his appointment was in charge planned landscape improvement for the park. He out- of landscape development for all of the public parks in lined his suggestions for improving “some of the more Washington, D.C. Through this work, Punchard gained important parts of the park” in a ten-page memo to Al- experience dealing with both politics and the restric- bright. His approach was to work “in the vicinity of the tions of a government budget that would prove useful important centers first, and as these sections assume[d] after he entered the employ of the NPS.37 He was, as the appearance desired and the most important im- Mather wrote of him, “of the ability and willingness to provements [were] made, continue to work out from take a very practical view of the problems to be solved, these centers along the roads and in time accomplish and to attack them always with full appreciation of the the desired result.” “Many of the suggestions I shall limitations of the park appropriations and the relation make,” he wrote, of these problems to other features of improvement of the park system.”38 The other part of this new “field are matters of policing and maintenance which engineering” division of the NPS was civil engineer have escaped the attention of the persons in George E. Goodwin, who served as chief engineer and charge, and although many of them may seem point person for “surveying, contracting, and building small and unimportant in themselves and park roads and trails.”39 perhaps could be done away with in the light Punchard described the role of an NPS landscape of larger and more conspicuous undertakings, engineer in an article he wrote for the journal Landscape nevertheless, collectively they are of the greatest Architecture, “Landscape Design in the National Park importance in the general appearance of the park, Service.” The landscape engineer “is a small fine arts and when they are once attended to and the work commission in himself,” he noted, well done, the area will require very little atten-

80 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” tion from year to year for maintenance.41 camping areas. Other vistas needed cleaning up, as well: the observation stations and platforms in the Canyon Punchard provided a detailed analysis of the park’s ap- area were, according to Punchard, “unsightly and unat- pearance and specific suggestions for improvement. tractive.” He suggested replacing them with ones con- He recommended starting at Mammoth Hot structed of lava rock or formation stone, and providing Springs, clearing the area to make it more attractive and some protection from the sun for “people desiring to to lessen any danger of fire. He suggested mowing in spend considerable time at these observation points.”46 front of the hotel, cutting all dead wood out of the trees He wanted all “inadequate and unattractive” structures on the parade ground, and removing “old stumps and removed and replaced with “more attractive,” appropri- branches” from the “old geyser craters.” Furthermore, ately integrated structures. For example, he argued, the he felt, removing the old employee buildings along the seating accommodations at Old Faithful Geyser should road from Liberty Cap to the Mammoth Camp, and be replaced with rustic equivalents.47 building new quarters in the row of buildings formerly Punchard also was not loathe to recommend polic- used as quarters for the non-commissioned officers be- ing the movements of tourists. He argued, for example, hind the stables would go a long way toward improving for “so protect[ing areas] that tourists can not reach the appearance of the area. He also suggested remodel- them,” and erecting structures that might even “mar [a ing many of the unused buildings in the fort area “for feature] materially,” because “some such precaution is dwelling purposes,” thus reducing the higher cost of necessary, [as long as] the . . . method is as satisfactory new construction.42 and inoffensive as it is possible.” For example, visitors Punchard also recommended developing “the Gar- sometimes tended to drive right up to the edge of pools diner [North] Entrance to the Park . . . at an early date and other features, and thus threaten these features’ and follow[ing] up until it has been made as attractive beauty, integrity, and very existence. Punchard himself and interesting as possible.” In this, Punchard concurred had seen “visible evidence of an automobile having been with Director Mather, who believed in marking park driven within one inch of the edge” of Morning Glory entrances “with appropriate gateway structures,” to give Pool.48 Constructing unobtrusive barriers around such “the American tourist” the “sense of pride and thrill features was considered a lesser evil than allowing visitors of pleasure that are inspired . . . as he passes through to destroy them. imposing pillars or arches that announce to him that The following year, Punchard found that the park he is entering a great playground that belongs to him had a “healthy appearance,” in contrast to what he had and to all America.”43 The proposed construction of an seen the year before. Both park staff and concessioners office building at the North Entrance in 1920 would had made an effort at improvements, he noted in a letter be “a step in the right direction,” Punchard thought.44 to Albright. In the same letter, he made recommenda- He also designed the East Entrance in 1919, but its tions for the colors of paint to be used by the NPS and construction was delayed because of a lack of funding;

as McClelland pointed out, the construction of gateways YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #23951 often depended upon special appropriations. Punchard’s design for the East Entrance “featured a portal of mas- sive local logs which was in scale and character with the surrounding forest and modeled after the Mount Rainier arch.”45 Punchard received permission from the U.S. Weather Bureau to remove an old snow gauge and other weather instruments from the parade ground because they were no longer used, and were “unsightly.” He also had a solution for enhancing the Wraith Falls area, where the vista had been created by cutting “many trees” that still lay on the ground. Punchard suggested that they be chopped up and used as firewood for campers, who would otherwise have cut wood improperly near the Warning sign at Old Faithful. 1920.

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 81 its concessioners.49 Log buildings, for example, should concluded, “the less conspicuous the barrier is made, the be painted a dark brown, and roofs of the ranger sta- less it will interfere with local conditions.”57 tions should be stained green.50 Painting the sprinkling Local conditions were also critical when building tanks located along the roads a light green color would and landscaping around the park’s soldier—now called harmonize them with adjacent foliage, he argued, and the “ranger”—stations and snowshoe cabins. The condition ones located in open spaces, such as on Swan Lake Flat, of these outposts was deplorable. Mather stated as much should be painted a light grey.51 The newly built filling in his 1919 annual report: “Most of the ranger stations stations had an attractive design, he argued—so attrac- were built many years ago for the summer housing of tive, in fact, that “it seem[ed] a pity to erect a flaring, troop detachments,” he wrote. “They are not fitted for bright red pump in front of them.” “Competition being the use of rangers, and several of them are in such dilapi- eliminated,” he wrote, “there is no reason for extensive dated condition that it would be false economy to repair or original advertising schemes to obtain business.” He them instead of constructing new buildings.” He wanted believed that the stations should be painted a dark green, to build “new ranger stations and information offices in grey, or dark brown.52 connection therewith at Upper Geyser Basin, Yellow- Some buildings were to be painted so as to make stone Lake, and Grand Canyon” in 1920.58 Punchard them as inconspicuous as possible. Others were to be agreed that the ranger stations needed considerable work. painted to harmonize with the color scheme of what In 1919, he told Albright that several stations should Punchard called a “village.” For example, when asked to be relocated to improve traffic control—the stations comment on the painting of buildings in the Mammoth at Old Faithful and Norris, in particular. He made a area—or Mammoth Village, as he called it—Punchard strong case for rethinking the entire system of ranger suggested using a grey paint or stain to match the color stations.59 Work on new stations was not begun until of Harry Child’s house, which was built in the vicinity of the summer of 1921, shortly before Punchard passed the hotel he operated. The roofs then should be stained away in November; in the meantime, existing ones were or painted green, Punchard argued. While he liked the painted and refurbished. idea of painting Fort Yellowstone’s red tile roofs green While work on the stations was put on hold, work to match the Engineer’s Office building used as park did begin on the snowshoe cabins. Mather had com- headquarters, he did recognize that, as he put it in a let- plained that these cabins were “old, in bad repair, poorly ter to Albright, “in doing so we would be destroying an located, and unsatisfactory from every standpoint.” Of expensive tile roof and [thus] might arouse some local all national parks, Mather argued, Yellowstone, “where criticism.”53 the weather conditions are more severe in winter than Punchard also weighed in on the policy, adopted in any other member of the system,” should have “dry, by the NPS in 1920, of using standardized directional sanitary quarters” for its ranger force, which needed “the signs for all parks. The new signs, having a white field means of overcoming the effects of exposure while on with green lettering, were of metal and thus considered long patrols in below-zero weather.” Mather communi- indestructible; they were to be mounted on posts “instead cated the gravity of the situation when he wrote: “This of being affixed to growing trees.”54 In Yellowstone, an is frankly an appeal in the interest of humanity.”60 order for 465 of the new signs was sent to the Hardesty With Albright’s coaxing, Mather made such a Manufacturing Company.55 As they were consistent with forceful plea for help that the NPS received adequate the color scheme he advocated, Punchard approved of funding for seven new cabins—four replacing older the signs, and specified that they should be raised to at ones—and for repairing four others. A new cabin was least five feet above the ground for easier recognition by added to the fleet of snowshoe outposts at Frost Lake, passing motorists.56 near the east boundary; at Harebell Creek, on the south Scenic views were so important to Punchard that boundary; and near the park’s Northeast Entrance. Older he recommended using a curb in place of a higher bar- cabins were replaced at Cascade Creek, on the south rier along the Canyon rim drive, “because it will be of boundary; at Lewis Lake (actually, the new cabin was sufficient height [one foot above the grade] and strength built on Aster Creek instead of again being “badly located to keep cars from jumping over and will be low and not near Lewis Lake”); at Park Point; and on Thoroughfare obstruct the natural appearance of the rim, as much as (now called Thorofare) Creek, in the park’s southeast a series of posts might.” “[I]n the Grand Canyon,” he corner. They were built of “peeled logs, well-chinked

82 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #31597

Harebell Snowshoe Cabin. 1932. with mud,” with doors and window shutters made of to keep a supply of wood dry. The building materials for “2-inch plank to provide protection from bears.” The the cabins—except the two six-light side-hinge windows, floors were of poles “flattened on three sides,” and all one on each side—were by and large available at the site. but two had roofs of “rubberoid, laid over hewed poles There were modifications to this one-room model. The and covered about 6 inches deep with earth.”61 Cabins at Thorofare Creek Cabin was built to accommodate two Sportsman Lake, Buffalo Lake, Grayling, and West Line rangers for the whole winter, and was thus longer (16' × (south of Riverside) received new roofs, floors, doors, and 30'), with two rooms: a kitchen and bedroom. The old window shutters. That year, Albright reported, nineteen cabin it replaced was used thereafter as a stable.65 The snowshoe cabins were “rationed or otherwise supplied front porch and wooden shingles this cabin now boasts for winter use.”62 were added in 1932, as part of a process to standardize The Harebell and Thorofare cabins are still stand- backcountry cabins. ing. The cabin at West Line, now called South Riverside, Before the advent of landscape engineers in the was built by the army, but received its last major overhaul NPS, “park superintendents or civil engineers designed in 1920. The new cabins, now represented by the cabin at buildings for a park or approved the work of architects Harebell Creek, exhibited the design characteristics later or builders hired by concessionaires.”66 After 1918, associated with Rustic, or Rocky Mountain, architec- landscape engineers were involved in the process. Mather ture—alternatively referred to as pioneer, or vernacular, made their involvement mandatory in 1919, when he style—and were simply the easiest and cheapest kind of stipulated that “[l]ocations for buildings of all kinds, cabin to build in areas far from the beaten path. Cost was whether they are to be erected by the Government or clearly a factor; Congress had placed a limit of $1,500 by the business interests catering to the needs of the on any park building “unless special appropriations public, are selected by the superintendents of the parks were granted.”63 These structures were also designed to in conference with the landscape engineer on the ground, use native materials, so as to be harmonious with their and all timber of the parks necessary in construction of surroundings—a clear goal of the landscape architects such buildings is selected and marked for cutting by these of the time.64 The use of these materials ensured that the officers.”67 Requiring the involvement of a landscape buildings would look natural, and thus like attractive engineer relieved pressure from some superintendents outgrowths of the surrounding environment. and annoyed others, but it most certainly added time and The cabin design for these snowshoe outposts was some measure of inconvenience. In 1922, Mather wrote uncomplicated. They were one-room, chinked log struc- to all park superintendents, admitting that this new pro- tures (18.8' × 16.2') with overhanging roofs (1' along vision added time to the process—he asked that requests the sides and the back and 4' in the front) to prevent for project approval be sent two or three months ahead snow buildup on the concrete foundation and possibly of time—and that it removed some sense of authority

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 83 from the superintendents. He reminded them, however, camps—and that is what Punchard and Albright set that landscape engineers played an invaluable role in about doing. “Plans already outlined by the landscape ensuring that structures “fit into the park environment engineer of the service and the superintendent,” Mather in a harmonious manner,” and that the superintendents wrote, “call for the improvement and maintenance of would “be held responsible to the Director for the faith- over 50 large camp grounds reasonably adjacent to the ful adherence to the details of the design as worked out” park roads.”76 In his 1919 Annual Report, Albright re- with the landscape engineer.68 Superintendent Albright ferred to a “crying need for the immediate construction wrote a short perfunctory note back: “I am glad to ad- of several large new automobile camp grounds” and vise you,” he wrote to Mather, “that in conference with called for “progressively extend[ing] and improv[ing] year Landscape Engineer Hull [Punchard’s replacement], by year” this improvement schedule, so that “as soon as . . . I advised him of the work that ought to be done for possible not less that 50 major camps should be made Yellowstone Park . . . and as far as I know the Yellowstone available.”77 By this time, approximately 25,000 people landscape needs are receiving full consideration.”69 (60 percent of visitors) annually toured the park in their Besides being involved with siting and designing own cars, and with their own camp equipment.78 This buildings, Punchard worked on the expansion and im- “complete camp system” for Yellowstone National Park provement of automobile camps in Yellowstone. These did not materialize for quite some time, but work on it camps were separate from the facilities previously run by began in earnest the very next year when, according to two separate concessioners, W. W. Wylie and the Shaw Albright, “excellent progress was made.”79 & Powell Camping Company, which were consolidated Work during those early years consisted of getting into the Yellowstone Park Camping Company in 1917, “a good supply of pure drinking water, and adequate during the major reorganization of concessions that took sanitary toilet facilities” to the major camps. New sites place when the NPS took over management of the park.70 on the knoll near Canyon Junction (formerly the site of The park had operated auto camps since 1916; already in a Wylie Permanent Camp at today’s Brink of Upper Falls 1917, officials had noticed a substantial increase in the road entrance) and at the Upper Geyser Basin, “in the number of tourists entering the park by automobile and thick timber on the opposite side of the road from Old making use of the camps.71 In 1919, Mather reported Faithful,” received water and sanitary earth closets. The that Punchard had spent considerable time on the “ex- established site at Mammoth Hot Springs (northeast of tremely important task” of locating and improving these the power house) proved to be more popular with tour- automobile camps. For Mather, the potential revenue ists than the site at the old barns (in front of Marble from automobiles entering the parks represented a sig- Terrace), which was abandoned. The power house site nificant addition to the NPS budget—money that could also received more toilets and a better water supply.80 In then be used for the road improvements. “[T]he increase July 1920, Punchard suggested that Albright consider in automobile revenue,” he wrote in 1917, “means better installing flush toilets, especially for the Mammoth au- highways in the [Yellowstone] park.”72 tomobile camp. “The time is coming,” he admonished. Automobiles would raise money, Mather argued, He also recommended “[c]amp-fire talks, the installation and more importantly, they would allow everyday of letter boxes and perhaps at some time when condi- Americans to visit their national parks.73 To Mather’s tions demand, the erection of a small branch store in way of thinking, automobiles democratized the parks these camps where a few staples can be carried, and a by allowing Americans of all socio-economic levels to campers’ register kept.”81 visit them. In 1921, Mather observed, “the advent of the Punchard was also heavily involved with construc- automobile with the opportunities for its use freely in all tion projects at the concessioner-run private camps. He the parks in the past five years has been the open sesame had advocated a “group system of cottages, with central for many thousands.”74 Yellowstone stood to benefit from toilet facilities” for the Mammoth Camp (Mammoth these new tourists, as well. “The private camping outfit Lodge) of the Yellowstone Park Camping Company, and of the motorist,” Mather wrote in his Annual Report to in 1920, was happy to see the plans coming together. the interior secretary, “has gained for the Yellowstone He was critical of the architectural style, however. A visit widespread recognition of its great resort possibilities.”75 to Glacier National Park had convinced Punchard that To accommodate these new thousands, Yellowstone, in a Swiss-chalet type of architecture was fitting for the his view, needed to expand and improve its automobile camp, and he shared that information with both the

84 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #32495 concessioner and the NPS: “It [the Swiss chalet type of architecture] would be . . . [a] particularly interesting setting and a thoroughly satisfactory type to adopt from the point of view of the concessioner and the Service,” he wrote to Albright in July 1920.82 On August 1, 1920, Mather appointed Daniel R. Hull to be Punchard’s assistant. When Punchard died of tuberculosis in November of that year, Hull became the senior landscape engineer and served as the NPS’s “principal planner and designer” until 1927. Mather lamented Punchard’s passing and, in his report to the interior secretary, paid tribute to Punchard’s “sterling worth,” his “proven ability,” “splendid enthusiasm,” Mammoth Automobile Camp. 1929. and “rare personal qualities” that had “won for him the respect and affection of all with whom he came in contact.”83 In February 1921, Hull in turn acquired an station/information center in 1919. Punchard’s design assistant landscape engineer, Paul Kiessig. for a community room/ranger station would bring the Hull graduated from the University of Illinois ranger and his information right to the public. in 1913, with a bachelor of science degree in agricul- Funding for building the ranger station/com- ture—specifically horticulture, and then in 1914 from munity centers was secured by the end of the summer Harvard with a master’s degree in landscape architecture. of 1920. Mather thanked the House Appropriations At the time of his appointment, he was working in Mil- Committee, and even gave credit, in his annual report waukee, Wisconsin; before that, he had been employed of 1920, for the conceptualization of the new stations as a landscape engineer in San Francisco, and as a camp to the chairman of the committee. “That these stations and hospital planner during World War I. According should contain large central rooms, to be maintained to McClelland, Hull “had fine drafting and architec- as information headquarters and community centers tural skills, which supplemented Punchard’s strong for campers, was the farsighted suggestion of Chairman philosophical outlook.” “Unlike Punchard,” McClelland Good, of the House Appropriation Committee,” he wrote, “[Hull] wrote few reports, and those he did were wrote.86 The plan, as Haines described it, was to keep in- brief.” “There is little question, however,” she continued, terpretation of the park’s natural features “low-keyed and “of the achievements of the landscape program during entertaining.” These ranger station/community rooms his tenure.” Kiessig also graduated from the University were thus a way to personalize and demystify learning of Illinois with a degree in agriculture, but three years about the park. “This rustic hall [the community room],” earlier than Hull. He worked for the NPS for two years, Haines wrote, “adorned with elk antlers, sheep horns, after which Thomas Vint, hired by Hull in November and bison skulls, served an information purpose by day: 1922, took over as assistant landscape engineer. Vint a place where visitors could get their bearings and any was trained as a landscape architect at the University of other help they might need. In the evening it became the California at Berkeley.84 scene of a folksy gathering by a log fire. There, visitors By 1921, two new ranger stations were complete. could listen to a ‘lecturer’ talk about the Park and join Punchard’s design plan for these and any other new in group singing. It was a personalized experience with ranger stations rested on a conceptual reorganization of great appeal,” he concluded.87 the park’s modus operandi: he advocated combining new Planning the buildings was not without contro- ranger stations with community rooms for campers. Al- versy and disagreement. Records of these arguments bright, too, wanted stations “large enough to accommo- illustrate how involved Mather was with the minutiae date several park rangers, a divisional highway engineer, of his job as NPS director, and also how useful it was and a large information office in which maps, national to have an expert in the field of landscape architecture park circulars of information, and other data useful to the involved with planning NPS structures in Yellowstone. public [would] be made accessible to tourists.”85 Mather In April 1921, Acting Landscape Engineer Hull sent had called for something similar, a combination ranger Mather a plan and prospectus for the “rangers’ quarters

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 85 and community rooms” to be built at Canyon and Old trees.” The design should also “impart something of the Faithful that summer. The layout, as Hull described character of the central building of Old Faithful Camp, it, was “developed along simple lines keeping in mind possibly through using the stairstep method of cutting the requirements of the structure” and was “one of two off the ends of the logs.” Albright preferred peeled logs requested by Superintendent Albright.”88 and told Hull so; logs with bark tended to attract vermin, Mather responded to Albright, basically approving he explained, and eventually the bark would come off the layout, but suggesting revisions for Albright’s and anyway.91 Hull’s consideration. He wanted a fireplace “flush with While it was necessary to secure the best bid for the wall of the room, or nearly so,” and not recessed, as constructing the stations, Albright knew who he wanted Albright and Hull had planned, so more heat was thrown to build them—Merritt I. Tuttle of Fromberg, Montana. out “far enough into the room.” He also wanted a provi- “Very frankly,” Albright wrote, “. . . there is only one man sion for heating the rangers’ dormitory. “I would like to in this region who can build these log structures just as have the rangers have their own complete privacy,” he we want them to be built[: Tuttle].” Albright reminded noted, “but surely when they return to their quarters after Mather that Tuttle had built “the splendid central build- a hard day’s work, perhaps chilled and wet, a fireplace or ing of the Lake Camp,” today’s Lake Lodge. Albright stove will be as much a necessity in their quarters as in also noted that it was Tuttle who had “erected the new the community room.” He suggested floor plan changes dining room and kitchen of the Canyon Camp, which such that the rangers could use “the same chimney of [Mather had] inspected . . . [as well as] Camp Roosevelt.” the community room fireplace for a fireplace in [their] Tuttle was, according to Albright, “not only a builder, dining room.”89 but an architect,” and he had “far more artistic sense Hull responded to Mather’s suggestions by defend- and more appreciation of woodland values than any ing the original plan: “The problem of a fire place for ordinary architect or builder.” He had, Albright added, heating is one which always presents difficulties,” he “vast experience in building log structures,” and “a deep wrote, “but from my observations at the various camping affection for the park itself.”92 company camps in Yellowstone, I believe the solution Tuttle was awarded the contract for two ranger indicated on our plan would be quite satisfactory,” he stations/community centers.93 But further disagree- argued. “If the night is cold, and the fire a large one,” he ments were at hand—this time with Landscape Engineer explained further, “the ingle nook would be too warm, Hull—over the placement of the stations/centers. Cor- but the larger room should be quite comfortable for respondence regarding this issue illustrated the power dancing, and I think the unobstructed floor area might that landscape engineers had been given, as well as the be an advantage. With the smaller fire which would be kinds of considerations taken into account when locat- burning ordinarily, heating the room would not be the ing structures in the park. A concerned Albright wired primary motive, and in that event, I do not believe the Mather on July 27: “Hull and I are in Friendly but direct recessed opening would be objectionable.” With respect conflict over location of new ranger stations at Canyon to the fireplace for the rangers, he also disagreed with and old faithful,” Albright complained. “[H]e wants Mather’s suggestion: “In this layout we have assumed of them back in trees where they cannot be seen[.] I want course that the community room would be used only them out in the open[:] if the buildings are attractive why during the park season while the rangers’ quarters would hide them[?] [I] have held up work on canyon station likely be used throughout the year. In this connection and wired Hull but he will not change his decision and a chimney has been provided in the end of the kitchen I will not agree to his site[.] please wire your decision as store room which will give flue connections to the three contractor has sixteen men waiting.”94 A “terribly disap- main rooms of the rangers’ quarters. Stoves I think would pointed” Albright had wired Hull the day before to say be more satisfactory here than an open fire.”90 that he did not like the location of the Canyon station Albright also had ideas about the design of the under construction: “No chance of our getting tourists ranger station/community centers. Regarding the pro- to see it and use it,” he had written. “Am convinced must posed Old Faithful Ranger Station, Albright wanted the have it in open where everybody can see it. . . . Rangers design to reflect the architecture of Old Faithful Inn, with discouraged. Please wire permission to change site. . . the use of “special windows, dormers and brackets under . Also wire permission to use shingles. Shakes will cost the rafters; these perhaps to be of bent limbs of Lodgepole three thousand dollars. Must close contract.”95

86 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Perhaps Mather was thinking of this dispute when very pleased with the outcome of the building. “The he addressed the issue of how differences of opinion entire improvement at the Canyon constitutes a thing between landscape engineers and park superintendents of beauty,” he wrote.99 Mather was also pleased with should be handled in a letter to all superintendents in the outcome, and proudly described the “community January 1922. “In such cases where a friendly difference buildings” in his report to the secretary. They “consist of opinion exists,” he wrote, “the matter can be referred to of quarters for the rangers and a large community room the Director for the final decision, and the decision when for the visitors,” he wrote. “The structures are built of given will constitute no reflection on the judgment of logs, the community rooms for social gatherings and either—it is simply that there were two possibilities and information headquarters containing huge fireplaces and the best one in the Director’s opinion was followed.”96 other comforts.”100 Albright also praised the structures As it was, the issue between Hull and Albright regarding at Canyon and Old Faithful. “Architecturally,” he wrote the location of the Canyon station/center was resolved to Hull, “they are the peers of the finest buildings in the in Hull’s favor—the station was built at the Brink of the park.” He also conceded that Hull had been correct in Upper Falls. Albright’s opinion of Hull improved im- the locations he had chosen for both buildings, which mensely after resolution of this affair. “I am so thoroughly he “observed to be right.”101 delighted with the work that Mr. Hull has done in the Plans for a ranger station/community center at Yellowstone,” he wrote in a letter to Mather, “I feel more Lake were underway in 1922, as were plans, using than ever, if that is possible, that his work is second to identical floor drawings, for a station/center at Cooke no other in the NPS. In this respect I frankly confess to City, Montana, and a fish hatchery at Trout Lake. The a revision of some views that I had last fall,” referring Tuttles, a father-and-son duo, would construct the Lake perhaps to the issue over siting of the Canyon station/ ranger station/community center, while Chief Ranger center.97 In a letter to Hull in October 1922, Albright Woodring and First Assistant Chief Ranger Trischman went out of his way to emphasize that structures built in would build the Cooke City station and the hatchery. the park were in accordance with Hull’s input regarding The Bureau of Fisheries and the NPS split the costs for design and location. For example, when describing plans the hatchery.102 for building the Lake ranger station/community center, The Lake community center/ranger station, ac- Albright noted that the structure was “built according cording to Mather, was “a triumph in woodland archi- to your plans and specifications and on the site selected tecture, being built of logs and having its community by you.” For every building he described in that report, room octagonal in shape with perfect jointing of logs.”103 Albright confirmed that it had been built according to Albright, too, was pleased: “You will be greatly pleased Hull’s plan and on Hull’s recommended site.98 with the work on this building,” he penned to Hull, In October 1921, Albright wrote to Paul Kiessig who was in California at the time. “It has been done concerning the construction of a barn near the Canyon in a most creditable manner and with the most care- station/center. In that letter, he emphasized that he was ful consideration of landscape values.”104 Both Mather YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #31716 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #31713

Old Faithful Ranger Station. 1929. Old Faithful Ranger Station fireplace. 1923.

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 87 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #31680

Lake Ranger Station. 1923. and Albright were especially pleased with the “indoor park’s landscape: the structures were a harmonious fit to campfire” in the octagonal community room. “The both their environment and their function as part of the Lake Station has become one of the talked-of structures National Park Service’s protective mission. of the park,” Albright proclaimed in his annual report During the spring of 1921, Albright corresponded for 1922.105 and held discussions with Hull regarding the type of log When all three community center/ranger stations architecture that was appropriate for “out-of-the-way” were painted, the color scheme worked out a little dif- places in Yellowstone. Hull favored an “old time log cabin ferently than proposed. The outside walls were to be effect.” Albright suggested that Hull study the design of stained a dark color with diluted creosote, while the the cabins built by park rangers, arguing that the rang- windows, doors, trim, inside walls, and shingles were ers’ design “admirably fits their needs and it certainly to be a light color.106 When Albright notified Hull that harmonizes with the environment.” His examples were the outside walls actually came out lighter than the trim, a ranch house built by Warren “Peck” Hutchings at what Hull was unconcerned: “Our chief desire is to kill the was by then called the Lower Slough Creek horse (or new effect of the buildings,” he wrote back to Albright, hay) ranch, “some five miles off the Cooke City road and “and if the wall color is dark enough for that, we can let 107 the other work out as it may.” Only the ranger sta- YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #122423 tion/community center at Lake still stands. The station at Canyon “fell a victim to progress in 1959,” as did the station at Old Faithful, to make room for a visitor center in the 1970s.108 In addition to the ranger station/community cen- ters, several other examples of Rustic Style architecture were constructed in the park during Hull’s first year as landscape engineer. In particular, Hull was involved with the Upper Slough Creek ranch house, which was intended to house the assistant buffalokeeper during a time when the park was expanding its haying operations to include the Slough Creek meadows; two snowshoe cabins, one on Hellroaring Creek, the other on Fox Creek; and a ranger station on Crevice Mountain. Each of these structures remains as visible evidence of the type of architecture considered to be in keeping with the The log work on the corners of the Lake Ranger Station. 1923.

88 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” twelve miles by road and trail from Camp Roosevelt,” grounds.”114 One noteworthy feature of the Hellroaring and a “hurriedly built” cabin constructed near the south Cabin was that it lacked an extended front porch, as did boundary in the fall of 1920.109 Both projects were log the one at Thorofare.115 constructions picturesquely located in the backcountry. In August 1921, park ranger Harry Anderson and Albright mentioned to Hull that such designs should be his crew built another “very substantial and comfortable” used for any new structures built in “the distant isolated snowshoe cabin, this one at Fox Creek.116 From an archi- sections of this Park,” because rangers had to work on tectural standpoint, the Fox Creek Cabin is considered such projects and materials had to be readily available “interesting and somewhat unique” for its “dovetail on site.110 notches at the corners and the cleat daubing technique Albright also told Hull that a new Slough Creek between the logs.”117 One design difference between hay ranch (what became known as Upper Slough Creek these cabins (both the snowshoe and the herder’s) built hay ranch) was being planned for the upper regions of in 1921, and those built both before and after was the the Slough Creek valley. He wanted to be able to use a use, in 1921, “of two purlins between the ridgepole and design similar to the cabins he had mentioned by way wall as compared to just one in the earlier examples.”118 of example, for he believed that all buildings and corrals Thus, the herder’s cabin at Slough Creek, which was also belonging to the new ranch should be constructed of referred to as the Lower Slough Creek Patrol Cabin, as logs, as it “would make a picturesque log establishment well as the Hellroaring and Fox Creek Snowshoe Cabins, that ought to be very interesting to travelers on the contained an extra purlin. Slough Creek Trail.” “If the cabins that I have described, The ranger station at Crevice Mountain was also strike you as worthy of adoption without fundamental built in August 1921. Thomas H. Lewis of Jardine, modifications,” he wrote to Hull, “I wish you would wire Montana, constructed the three-room, T-shaped build- me to that effect, and if the modifications desired do not ing, which was called a ranger station even though it require too elaborate an explanation, perhaps you could did not serve the “public contact function” other ranger include them in a telegram.”111 stations did. Albright referred to the cabin as “one of the By June 1921, plans were underway to construct more picturesque in the park.”119 the cabin at a site recently turned over to hay production Whether Hull conceptualized, or just approved the for the park’s elk population—the Upper Slough Creek design rangers came up with for the cabins built in 1921, hay ranch. “A log cabin and log barn will be constructed is not known. Other structures that Hull did design and on Slough Creek about four miles above the present hay were constructed during 1921, but no longer stand, are ranch [Lower Slough Creek hay ranch] at a site where a shelter and fire lookout on Mount Washburn—both it is proposed to put up additional hay for winter use of built of native rock and timber—and a new stone the elk,” wrote Albright in his monthly superintendent’s checking station just inside, and compatible in design report for June 1921. “The house is to be about 16 × 30 with, the North Entrance arch. (The Washburn lookout feet, and the barn about 40 feet long by 18 feet wide. was replaced in 1940, and the North Entrance check- Both floors and ceilings will be of boards, and the roofs ing station was replaced in the late 1930s.) This 1921 will be of boards covered with rubberoid.” As Albright checking station was built to replace the “unsightly tent noted, Hull had approved the design plan.112 arrangement” that had formerly greeted visitors arriving Just before the cabin at Upper Slough Creek was from the north.120 built, a “substantial log cabin was built on Hellroaring Other park improvements during the summer of Creek” in March and April by “the regular ranger force” 1921 addressed the needs of the ever-increasing number to replace the cabin built by Captain Erwin in 1898, of automobile campers. New automobile camps at Lake which had become uninhabitable.113 The 15' × 32', two- Outlet (Fishing Bridge) and Mammoth Hot Springs were room cabin and 12' × 27' log stable were, according to added, while the site at Canyon was extended for nearly Albright, “better built and considerably superior to the one-half mile across the Canyon-to-Norris road. The first ordinary snowshoe cabin” —a necessity, he claimed, “in camp at Lake Outlet received a new cement reservoir that view of the fact that last winter it was found desirable stored water from a nearby spring to provide water to to keep two or three men in this station for a large part the campground via a 4,000-foot galvanized-iron pipe of the winter to herd back the elk, to keep them inside and eight faucets located in the camping area. The water the park, and in the vicinity of the Slough Creek feeding supply for Camp Number 2, constructed on the east

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 89 side of Fishing Bridge, was more than one mile away; a century, urged by [Modern architects] Louis Sullivan large concrete tank was built that stored the spring-fed and Frank Lloyd Wright.”125 Hull’s views aside, antlers water before distributing it to camp’s eighteen faucets. continued to adorn buildings in the park through the Earthen toilets were installed at both sites. The extended 1930s and, unofficially, long after that at selected patrol Canyon Camp offered three faucets for camper use; two cabins.126 earthen toilets were installed there, as well. Albright By 1922, the NPS’s new Landscape Engineering recommended to Mather that two new big camps be Division had profoundly influenced the park’s develop- built, one at Tower Fall and the other at West Thumb, ment at both the concessioner and government levels. and that numerous smaller ones be scattered around All plans were reviewed by the division to ensure that the park.121 sites and buildings “fit into the park environment in a The year 1921 also saw a change in the color harmonious manner.”127 Furthermore, the division began scheme at Mammoth. The trim on the stone buildings developing standardized plans for some park buildings, on Officers’ Row received two coats of white paint, and including a standard-type comfort station for auto the window sashes were painted black. The remaining campgrounds, three of which were built in Yellowstone quarters on Officers’ Row were painted a light grey, with in 1922—one at Lake and two at the Old Faithful auto light green roofs; the chimneys were painted a terra cotta camps.128 color. While Albright considered the change an improve- In 1922, approximately 50,000 motorists camped ment over the dark red roofs and chimneys—“it harmo- in the park’s public campgrounds. The improved, ex- nizes much better with the surroundings than did the panded system now offered facilities at Madison Junc- old colors with a dark red roof,” he wrote—this clearly tion, Tower Fall, and West Thumb in addition to those represented a departure from historic colors.122 at Mammoth, Old Faithful, Canyon, and Lake. The In the Lamar Valley, work on the buffalo ranch expansion of the system relied on increased coordination operation moved forward as park officials erected a drift of the sanitation work between the park, the U.S. Public fence, constructed of heavy logs, from Opal Creek to Health Service, and the Smithsonian Institution, which the rim of Mount Norris and down the Lamar Valley was directing mosquito control in the park. Sanitation to the ranch proper at a cost of approximately $1,000. work was extensive, and consisted of reservoirs and pipe- The 7-foot-high “worm” fence had 22-foot panels with lines for the auto camps, sewage systems, disposal plants, a two-section floating boom anchored with cables over sedimentation tanks, bacteriological analyses of water the river crossing. The ranch also received a new black- and milk, and the beginnings of drainage and other work smith shop.123 for mosquito control at Old Faithful and Lake.129 During a July 1921 visit to the park when he In addition to the nearly 50,000 campers, another was especially busy with the ranger station/community 50,000 tourists visited the park in 1922. Such record centers at Canyon and Old Faithful, Hull brought along numbers put pressure on the park’s trails system, as horse the well-known landscape architects Frederick Law and pack trains logged a record number of miles. The Olmsted, Jr., and Harlan P. Kelsey. After their tour of NPS built an additional 88 miles of trails, including the park, Hull gave Albright numerous suggestions for the Howard Eaton Trail in honor of pioneer guide and improving the park’s appearance, including the removal famous game conservationist Howard Eaton (of Eaton of elkhorn fences around ranger stations, particularly at Ranch, Wyoming), who died on April 5, 1922. By the West Thumb and West Yellowstone. He advised Albright end of the season, Albright could proudly proclaim that “[s]imple, natural condition should be maintained that the park had 781.5 miles of trails, and that greater rather than freak exhibits of craftsmanship.”124 Hull’s landscaping considerations were given to the trails built views on this issue were part of a larger move away from in 1922 than ever before.130 the embellishment of park structures. He and others Remodeling the ranger station at Tower was the top considered the use of adornments, such as antlers, “as landscape project for the 1923 season. Because of cost, an impractical and undesirable affectation,” preferring Albright wanted to remodel the existing 1907 station “more sturdy, functional, and unadorned structures.” Ac- instead of building a new one. He asked Hull to work cording to historian Linda McClelland, this “movement up a design that conformed to the new Haynes Picture away from ornamented designs reflected the emergence Shop, which he felt was “very artistic and . . . one of the of the ‘form follows function’ principle of the twentieth prettiest structures in the Park.”131 In his 1923 annual

90 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” report, Albright noted that the old ranger station would to be one of the finest achievements in small structure be rebuilt later that year, in October.132 Work actually got work in the Parks,” he wrote to Albright in 1924. “It is underway in September 1924, when Albright noted in a corker and the fact that your own men built it makes his monthly report, “The old Tower Falls Ranger Station it doubly interesting.” “[I]t is the type of building that was rebuilt to make it conform in appearance to the other will give great credit to the NPS,” he concluded.137 The buildings in that section. A porch was built across the West Entrance station was intended to be permanent, front, a false stone foundation laid around the buildings, while the East Entrance station was merely “a temporary the roof was extended 18 inches at the ends, and log expedient until a permanent structure can be designed rafters placed and the old shingles replaced with 24 inch and built.”138 A new ranger/entrance station was built shakes.” The doors were also replaced with ones made in 1932 to replace this 1924 structure. of “2 inch plank with heavy iron hinges and latches.” Two new snowshoe cabins were built in 1924, as What really gave the station a different look, one more well: a 30' × 16' two-room cabin at Heart Lake (to replace similar to the structures that surrounded it, was “[a] false the one built in 1901), and a smaller, one-room, 18' × 15' log frame [that] was placed around the building to give cabin at Cache Creek.139 The snowshoe cabin at Heart it a paneled appearance.”133 Lake was constructed of unhewn, peeled, and stained logs A variety of other buildings were added in 1923, with saddle-notched corners. The wood shingle roof was and auto camps were overhauled and expanded. New front-gabled, but without intermediate purlins; its ridge additions included a 16' × 26' log mess building at the pole was decorative and V-notched. The roof hung out Lewis River maintenance camp, a standard 12.5' × 22' over the front of the cabin by six feet, thereby creating comfort station and a similarly sized laundry facility “a large open one bay porch, in the Rocky Mountain at the Mammoth Automobile Camp, and four regular Style.” The Heart Lake Cabin represented “the snowshoe comfort stations of similar size at Canyon. Plans were cabins built in Yellowstone National Park after creation made to build “a frame barn with log trim” at Dunraven of the NPS but before adoption of standard plans.” It Pass and “a combined winter ranger quarters and sum- illustrated the “evolutionary changes in cabin design mer mess hall at Old Faithful.”134 At the auto camps, that occurred during the 1920s,” and was “one of three in conjunction with the U.S. Public Health Service, 2-room snowshoe cabins built during the 1920s.”140 Yellowstone’s sanitation department completed a new Chief Ranger Woodring also personally oversaw the water system at the camp at Tower Fall, improved the construction of this cabin.141 water supply to Mammoth’s and Old Faithful’s auto The Heart Lake Snowshoe Cabin exhibited several camps, started work on the new water system at Canyon, important design differences from cabins built earlier in and opened up new areas with toilets and a water supply the park. Its extended front porch was deeper, “which at Madison Junction and at “the two mile post inside required vertical log posts to support the extended wall the park’s east line.”135 purlins,” and its roof, rather than being of “hewn log In 1924, flush toilets were installed at Canyon (31 poles covered with ‘rubberoid’ and then a layer of dirt,” toilets), Lake (8), Fishing Bridge (16), and Tower Fall was made of wood shingles over lumber sheathing that (8). Five comfort stations were built that year— “two was in turn supported by log pole rafters.142 The cabin at Fishing Bridge camp, one at Lake auto camp, one at Cache Creek was “almost identical in design to the at Tower Fall, and one at West Thumb.” Dunraven first cabins built by the park in 1920.” In fact, it did Pass received a new, log-trim, frame bunkhouse “for “not exhibit the evolutionary design changes seen on the use of snow crew in the spring and maintenance crew cabins constructed in the intervening year, or the Heart in summer,” and a log-trim, frame ranger station and Lake Snowshoe Cabin” constructed in the same year.143 information office.136 Albright wrote, in his monthly report for August 1924, The East and West entrances received new check- that the cabin was “of the standard size and equipment.” ing stations, actually combined entrance and ranger sta- It was designed “to facilitate winter patrols in an impor- tions. The idea originated with Chief Ranger Woodring, tant game district and [made] easily accessible a region who supervised their construction. Acting NPS Director heretofore remote and difficult to cover.”144 Arno Cammerer praised the design of the checking Pressure on the auto camps continued in 1925, stations. “I cannot resist the impulse immediately to as over 90,000 visitors used their facilities. Water pipes, write you a letter of congratulations on what I consider sewer systems, and comfort facilities were expanded at

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 91 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #28783-3 a number of sites. Furthermore, a new campground equipped with all the latest comforts was constructed at West Thumb; its water came from Duck Lake.145 At West Thumb, referred to as “Thumb of Lake” by Albright, rangers built a new, three-room log summer station us- ing a design provided by Hull. Hull had recommended to Albright in March of that year that the design be the same as for the log building scheduled to be built at the Belton entrance to Glacier National Park. He had rec- ommended “using log trim frame construction instead of logs.”146 This plan had to be altered, however, due to a lack of funding. In its place, a three-room, L-shaped snowshoe-cabin-type structure was built. The L-shaped “footprint [was] created by two intersecting gabled com- ponents, joined by a wood-frame breezeway.”147 A unique, two-room snowshoe cabin was built that year at the mouth of Blacktail Deer Creek.148 Built by rangers under the supervision of the chief ranger, the Blacktail Deer Creek Snowshoe Cabin was unique for where its main door was placed—on a longitudinal rather than latitudinal side. According to a survey of snowshoe cabins done in 2001, “[t]he cabin’s [unique] design may have been influenced by its location along the Yellow- stone River, one of the more temperate snowshoe cabin Superintendent Albright on the steps of Apollinaris Spring. locations in the park. The extended gable porch found 1925. on the other cabins, which protected the front door from snow buildup and provided for wood storage,” the report parks as far as I know.”153 Park visitors also appreciated continued, “may not have been required here.”149 the new work. Many, as Albright noted later that sum- The most important landscape project in the park mer in a letter to Hull, were seen photographing the in 1925 took place at Apollinaris Spring, where Hull springs and then climbing “up through the shrubbery worked together with H. B. Hommon, sanitary engineer . . . look[ing] at the concrete reservoir, monkey[ing] with of the U.S. Public Health Service, to improve sanitary the valves, and in general regard[ing] this beautiful piece conditions at the spring and actually create a landscape of landscape work as a child would regard an elephant by “building a spring effect using large rocks. . . .”150 cage in a circus.” This enthusiasm occurred much to the Hull came to the park that June to personally supervise detriment of the landscape plantings, which were ruined and direct the project.151 Choosing limestone slabs from and “tramped . . . up worse than ever before.” Albright the Hoodoos near Mammoth Hot Springs, Hull’s crews hoped that “nature during the fall, winter, and spring fashioned new approaches to the spring. Large blocks [would] so restore natural conditions around the spring of obsidian and granite boulders were used in wall as to satisfy the curiosity of the tourist and cause him to construction. Hommon designed the watercourses and let the situation alone.”154 While the spring development plumbing, working out a system whereby the public came in “over-expenditure” by $264.66 (total cost was could consume the water before it was collected for use $1,464.66), Albright felt “it was worth it.”155 Not only in a sprinkling tank. Hull designed the landscape plant- was the spring area more beautiful, it was also much ings. A concrete basin was constructed around the spring more sanitary: “[O]f course from the standpoint of sani- to provide for overflow from another spring discovered tation, it is equally as effective [as from the standpoint during the project.152 of beauty],” Albright wrote to Hull after the latter had At the end of the month, Superintendent Albright returned to California, “because without doubt the old called Apollinaris Spring “the most beautiful piece of Apollinaris Spring was the most unsanitary thing we landscape work that has been done in the national had.”156

92 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #124701

Two men, one a park ranger (right), at Apollinaris Spring. 1925.

More recognition for the spring’s development could actually help keep the nation’s parks beautiful. project came in 1926, when Superintendent Albright “Keep” was the operative word. “It is not a landscape received high praise from Gilbert Stanley Underwood, engineer’s purpose to add anything to nature’s achieve- graduate of Harvard University with a master’s degree ment,” he wrote, “but to restrain the human inclination in architecture and Union Pacific Railroad’s architect to desecrate and destroy, and where human construction of several lodges in national parks such as Zion, Bryce is necessary, to keep it as unobtrusive or inoffensive as Canyon, and the Grand Canyon’s North Rim, as well possible. It is not easy for most of us to understand as the Union Pacific Dining Hall in West Yellowstone, why the intelligent human species needs this restraint,” Montana.157 In a letter to Albright, Underwood wrote: he added. “But it does.”159 Before publication, he sent a copy of his article to, among others, Albright and I am tremendously impressed with the fine Arno B. Cammerer, who, at that time, was assistant to character of the rock work and of the scheme in Mather and would become director of the NPS himself general. Now if you can only develop the hand- in 1933.160 kerchief pool in some sort of fashion which will In his note to Albright, Kiessig apologized in ad- eliminate the rather unpleasant symmetry and vance for saying something that might offend Albright. smooth concrete finish, you will have two very When he advocated choosing park superintendents from wonderfully developed waterscapes in Yellow- the amongst the ranks of landscape engineers so as to stone. My heartiest congratulations on, not your preserve parks in the scenic sense, he assured Albright, he efforts, but your attitude toward the right sort of was not meaning to criticize Albright. “What I have said atmosphere in the Parks [sic] development.158 about [superintendents] applies less to you than anyone else we came in contact with. You at least did not profess Not all national park superintendents received such landscape judgement and were always openminded,” he praise from the NPS’s landscape engineers. Around the acknowledged. In fact, Kiessig felt Albright might even time he left office as Hull’s assistant, Paul Kiessig wrote agree with him: “I think you may see too that nearly every an essay explaining to the general public why landscape project a superintendent undertakes has some bearing engineers were essential to the existence of national parks, on the plan or appearance of the park.”161 If Albright and why it would perhaps be better if park superinten- agreed, he did not let on. “In the position of Superinten- dents were trained in landscape engineering. In response dent of a National Park,” he responded to Kiessig, “I do to the question often asked of park landscape engineers, not see how the training of a landscape engineer could “Landscape Engineering in the National Parks? Why possibly fit him for the intricate and detailed executive paint the lily?” he responded that landscape engineers work of one of these places.” He granted Kiessig one

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 93 point, however. “Aside from the position of National operation from the superintendents and concessioners Park Superintendent there are very few, if any, positions is concerned,” he concluded.165 in Government service requiring executive ability and Albright remained true to his word. He relied on business experience as well as an appreciation of things Hull more and more to help him make such decisions beautiful and keen sympathy with the policy of complete as, for instance, which trees to cut so as to open up a conservation,” he told Kiessig. vista or make room for a structure. For example, in Albright also took umbrage at Kiessig’s use of 1925, Albright had Hull “[m]ark the trees that [were] to photos of Yellowstone’s “mistakes” in the built landscape be cut in front of the Lake Hotel and around the Lake to illustrate his points: “I think it would be very unfair dormitory . . . [as well as those] to be cut in making the to use pictures of structures and improvements erected fire lane between the Lake camp grounds and the Lake in the National Parks prior to the establishment of the Hotel.” Albright wanted Hull to make two marks: “one NPS,” he complained. “No one dislikes Fort Yellowstone plain mark that the wood-choppers can distinguish and and many other structures in Yellowstone National Park one secret mark only known to the rangers in order that worse than I do, not alone from the landscape point of the wood-choppers may be prosecuted in case they cut view but from the standpoint of economy and utility, more trees than we want them to cut.”166 but the work is done and represents a heavy investment Albright’s tenure as superintendent clearly marked and must stay for many years to come.” He did admit, a high point in the symbiotic relationship between however, to making one “landscape mistake of not very landscape engineers and park superintendents in their much importance” since he had been superintendent: joint effort to conserve and preserve the parks. Albright “the establishment of the walks in Black Sand Basin.” is known to have defended landscape engineers in the But he defended his decision as one of necessity in the face of controversy and condemnation from higher face of disaster: “I waited for a year to get promised positions.167 He also acknowledged, before a crowd of suggestions from the landscape Department,” he wrote, fellow superintendents at the annual superintendents’ “while people waded in water to their shoetops. Some- conference in November 1922, the important role that thing had to be done so I started the cheap method of Hull, as landscape engineer, had played in Yellowstone’s laying down concrete curbs and filling in between with improved appearance.168 formation material.” 162 In November 1922, Hull hired Thomas Chalmers Black Sand Basin housed Handkerchief Pool, the Vint to be a second assistant in the Landscape Engineer- problem area to which architect Underwood had re- ing Department. When Kiessig left the department in ferred in his letter praising the work around Apollinaris early 1923, Vint remained as the only assistant, a position Spring. The pool was already popular around the turn he filled until 1927, when he took over from Hull, who of the twentieth century, when tourists—and even the left the office when operations moved from Los Angeles troops protecting the park—would put handkerchiefs to San Francisco (also home to the offices of the divisions down the pool in hopes of watching them come gushing of civil engineering, education, forestry, and sanitary out again a few minutes later, washed clean.163 Kiessig engineering).169 Vint became the third chief landscape shared Underwood’s dismay with Albright’s decision architect of the Landscape Division, the newly created to lay concrete around the area. “No doubt increasing “group of specialists whose job [it] was to advise the traffic made necessary some provision for the concen- director and park superintendents on matters related to trated treading here,” he wrote, “but certainly this is park development and management.” Vint had gradu- not a happy solution. . . . [L]andscape advice would ated from the University of California at Berkeley with have been of some advantage here. The nature lover’s a degree in landscape architecture in 1920. He amassed reaction to the improvement is probably like that he a dossier of experience in the landscape field before join- would get from a stuffed deer. The vitality here is pretty ing the NPS, where he learned the ropes by acquiring well lost.”164 After defending his decision to “improve” “field experience working out practical and aesthetic the Black Sand Basin area, Albright ended his letter to solutions” for the nation’s parks.170 McClelland wrote Kiessig on a positive note: he felt that superintendents that the reorganization of the Landscape Division helped would get easier to work with as time went by. “[F]rom “the landscape architects of the service, and particularly now on the Landscape Engineering Department is going Vint . . . [to assume] official responsibility over location, to have absolutely nothing to worry them so far as co- character, and quality of all park construction.”171

94 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Vint hired several assistants to help him, including hay ranch. Engineer A. W. Burney had drawn the plans, Ernest A. Davidson, “whom [Vint] assigned to work in and Chief Ranger Sam Woodring had suggested the Glacier, Yellowstone, and Mount Rainier,” and Kenneth location for the building.176 While in the park, Vint and McCarter, who was assigned to the field. Vint wanted Hull must have approved the plans and perhaps added his staff to be “capable in landscape matters, the design suggestions for siting and design improvements.177 The of buildings and structures, community planning, and combined storehouse/bunkhouse was a 16' × 30', two- the design of bridges.” Their training was “in the general story “Rustic Vernacular Style building,” designed both principles of landscape architecture and city planning to harmonize with the built and natural environments [with] . . . a general knowledge of the fundamentals of and to serve as a practical solution to real storage and architecture.”172 He described the work of his division lodging problems at the Slough Creek ranch. 178 Its log in this way: structure rested directly on the cement foundation (there was no foundation on the north side, the section that The work of the Landscape Division . . . is a dif- was to be used to store equipment) and extended to the ferent character than the general practice of the second story (11'), which was used as “a bunkhouse or landscape profession. Although landscape work sleeping quarters for the hay crew during haying season predominates in the work, it merges into the field and for storing equipment during winter months.”179 of architecture. We have little use for landscape Those using the bunkhouse entered via a small, un- men whose experience is limited to the planting covered porch on the building’s south side.180 A second of shrubbery and allied to landscape work. There structure, which Vint called a “new stable 20 × 40 to is little planting done within the National Parks accommodate twenty head of horses, hay and grain and what is done is limited to the transplanting of storage,” was also built at the Lower Slough Creek hay native shrubs and trees, so the general commercial ranch in 1921. As Vint wrote, the new structure would stock is not used. The work has to do with the allow the NPS to “dismantle” the old stable and corral preservation of the native landscape and involves in the area.181 the location and construction of communities, In 1927, the Lamar buffalo ranch received a new, buildings, etc. within an existing landscape.173 two-story “hay and horse barn.”182 This magnificent barn (52' × 32' × 28') joined the ranger station built in the area While Vint could not be everywhere and do every- in 1915. Constructed of logs with saddle notches and thing—and thus had a growing and wide-ranging staff chopper-cut ends, the building rested on a stone-faced of capable assistants—he did keep in constant contact concrete foundation and incorporated five fifteen-light with his crew, and he personally oversaw as many projects awning windows along each side elevation. The gam- as he could. brel roof had exposed log rafter and purlin ends and “By July 1929,” wrote McClelland of Vint’s tenure wood shingles, which were doubled every course. Both with the NPS, “Vint had transformed the Landscape gambrel ends contained double and pedestrian doors of Division into a design office with an increasing emphasis vertical board construction and “massive wrought-iron on general planning. . . . The division was involved to strap hinges.”183 some degree in all phases of park development.”174 Vint Four new snowshoe cabins were also built in 1927: had six assistant and two junior landscape architects by at Fawn Pass, Mary Lake, Crystal Spring, and Shoshone this time. He felt, moreover, that the division had made Lake. All of the cabins, consisting of one story and “good landscape men” out of the park superintendents, one room, were uniform in design, a design that broke and good “national park men” out of “even the best- slightly from tradition. Their extended front porches trained landscape architects.” He assigned his assistants were deeper, and their roofs were of wood shingle over to various parks for the purpose of overseeing projects. lumber sheathing, except over the porch, where the roofs In June 1929, Vint appointed Kenneth McCarter to his were of round poles laid with the slope of the roof, and field position in Yellowstone National Park.175 they had windows only on the front and back walls.184 Vint had visited Yellowstone in 1926, along with Albright found the cabins “attractive in appearance, Hull, who was at that point still chief landscape engineer. securely and stoutly built and splendidly adapted to They had read of plans to build a combined equipment the uses intended.”185 The cabin at Crystal Spring was storehouse and bunkhouse at the Lower Slough Creek bigger than the others.186 The cabins at Fawn Pass and

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 95 Mary Lake still stand, and the cabin at Crystal Springs be replaced with earthen paths and masonry parapets of was moved to Three River in 1993, and to its present native stone.”192 Assistant Landscape Architect Davidson location at Three River Junction in 1995. Concurrently, sketched plans to replace the wooden structures in the a cabin was built by the U.S. Forest Service along Dailey Canyon area with rockwork. These plans, according to Creek; it was later added to the park when a portion of McClelland, were the “first consideration of the area the Gallatin National Forest was transferred by Congres- from a ‘landscape standpoint.’” While Davidson’s plans sional action to Yellowstone in March 1929. This cabin were not followed immediately, they were included in the was constructed at low cost, and was not intended to 1932 master plan for the area, and finally implemented be a permanent structure.187 When it became one of the in modified form in the mid-1930s.193 park’s snowshoe cabins in 1929, the Dailey Creek Cabin Vint and his staff worked on several plans for served the northwestern corner of the park. standardized park structures between 1927 and 1929. Other landscape issues in 1927 centered around Structures such as “patrol cabins or comfort stations,” cleanup and planting in various areas of the park, and im- McClelland wrote, “could follow a common design that provement of the park campgrounds. In 1924, John D. was repeated throughout the park. The same design Rockefeller, Jr., had visited the park and been impressed might be used again and again in one park, provided with the need for cleaning up the roadsides. Asking to the external characteristics of the structure fit harmoni- remain anonymous, he “authorized the expenditure of ously into the natural setting.”194 Comfort stations were sufficient funds to clear up as much of the road south standardized in 1927, and in 1929, housekeeping cabins from park headquarters . . . as could be accomplished” were standardized after Albright asked Vint’s division to that season.188 Rockefeller, to whom Albright referred “make a special study of housekeeping cabins and draw in correspondence as “the eastern friend of the park,” up plans for a cabin suitable for the automobile tourist again supplied funds for roadside cleanup in 1927. in the national parks.”195 In addition to the cleanup that year, Ernest Davidson During 1928, one mess house and three bunk- and Thomas Vint supervised extensive plantings in the houses were constructed for use by road maintenance Gardiner and Mammoth areas.189 Improvements to the crews at Madison Junction, Norris Junction, and the campgrounds included building comfort stations and Lewis River. The mess house at the old Norris road camp installing sewer systems, earth toilets, and tables. As still stands, though it has been modified—the old front more and more people took to visiting the nation’s parks porch on the south elevation has been enclosed. It is one as campers, these areas required constant expansion and and one-half stories, frame, and on a concrete founda- modernization.190 tion.196 Directly adjacent to the mess house at Norris was It was also at this time that Rockefeller, who had the bunkhouse, a one-story, wood-frame, rectangular initiated major roadside improvement projects in na- structure, which is also still standing.197 Two “standard” tional parks, influenced the future of NPS architecture. snowshoe cabins were built as well, at Cascade Creek During his visit to Yellowstone in 1926, he discussed and at Fishing Bridge, but only the one at Fishing Bridge “the need of a commission to develop a special type of still stands.198 The cabin—a “classic [NPS] Rustic design: national park architecture and supervise plans for the one-story, log construction, with a simple rectangular development of the parks.” Rockefeller, who believed footprint disrupted only by the open, inset porch entry” he could get the country’s best architects and engineers —was modified and moved in 1932, as part of the park’s to serve on the commission, offered to fund the entire first master plan.199 Finally, a “standard duplex” ranger cost.191 Over the next few years, many noted architects station was built at the South Entrance to house “the and landscape architects visited the park. permanent rangers stationed there all year round for fire For example, landscape architect Harold Caparn and game patrols and [the] temporary summer ranger visited the park in 1926, to give his “professional opin- checkers.”200 The building was replaced in 1941, after a ion on a boundary dispute along the Bechler River.” He destructive fire in 1940.201 used the visit to make suggestions for improving “the In 1929, a one-story, log bunkhouse was built landscape character of the . . . observation decks along near the Lamar Buffalo Ranch Ranger Station (1915) the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone.” McClelland and horse barn (1927) to house rangers working with wrote that “Caparn urged that the wooden stairways, the bison that fed in the area during the winter. The ramps, and railings that had been installed about 1920 rectangular building had a large dormitory on the east

96 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” end that was separated from the lounge/winter kitchen educational places was becoming clearer. In that year’s on the west end by a bathroom and three private bed- annual report, he called the parks underutilized by rooms. This rustic structure was built on a foundation schools and universities and by individual scholars and of concrete with stone facing. The logs had ventral scientists. He was “extremely anxious that steps should be saddle-notching and chopper-cut ends. The front-gable taken in several of the largest parks next year [1920] to roof featured exposed purlin ends and wood shingles, demonstrate the practicality of conducting studies of the doubled every sixth course. After 1963, the interior of natural features at reasonable expense to students availing the bunkhouse was remodeled so it could serve as a mess themselves of the opportunities for the field laboratory hall and classroom facility for researchers and later, the work that the parks afford.” He also cited Columbia Yellowstone Institute.202 University’s addition of a national parks study course to The major construction project at decade’s end was its curriculum as a model for other institutions to fol- a museum at Old Faithful—one of what would be four low, and mentioned the LeConte Lectures at Yosemite, trailside museums in the park, to be discussed later in campfire talks at numerous parks, the publication of this chapter. Before these museums were even dreamed a natural history series, and the establishment of park of, however, Albright was hard at work on an educational museums in several parks, one of which—albeit a very component for the park. rudimentary one—was housed in Yellowstone’s park headquarters.206 Albright also had a strong interest in promoting For the Benefit—and Education—of the Yellowstone’s educational value. According to researcher People Denise Vick, in her study, Yellowstone National Park and the Education of Adults, Albright had a particularly When the NPS took over management of the parks, keen interest in developing the educational component its mission in Yellowstone, in addition to protecting the of park operations. In fact, Yellowstone served a leader- park’s natural and cultural resources, was to provide op- ship role in the area of educational programming. Vick portunities for recreation and the enjoyment of nature. wrote that while Yosemite National Park might have The park, after all, was considered a playground for the been important for the development of educational American people, and offered “tremendous recreational ideas and programs, it was “in Yellowstone that the idea advantages that are only just beginning to be appreci- of an integrated educational component for the Park ated,” as Mather wrote in 1917.203 The more people who Service was fully developed.”207 Thus, before education enjoyed the park, the more time and money they would became a system-wide priority, officials at Yellowstone spend there, and the more they would support the NPS. were making real attempts to educate visitors. Mather understood this when he wrote, in 1918, “One The story of Yellowstone’s efforts to educate its of our chief duties is declared to be the encouragement visitors began with its attempt to inform them. From in the national parks of all outdoor sports, except hunt- the time the NPS took over management of the park, ing and other activities which may impair the parks or the superintendent’s office had housed an information injure their wild life. . . . Recreational use of the parks is desk where visitors could purchase U.S. Geological to be stimulated by any means possible.”204 Survey contour maps and obtain other information on Recreation, however, was only part of Mather’s the park free of charge. “The Government information vision for the parks. He was also convinced that parks circular is a very popular pamphlet, of inestimable value had tremendous educational value. Both Mather and to travelers,” wrote Albright in his first annual report in Albright recognized this value and sought ways to maxi- 1919. “It is in great demand and its publication and free mize it. “From the standpoint of education,” Mather distribution should under all circumstances be contin- continued in his 1918 annual report, “classes in science ued.” But the park had no sector specifically charged with are to be afforded special opportunities to study in the disseminating information to visitors until the following national parks, and museums containing specimens of year. Thus, during the summer season of 1919, tourists their flora and fauna are to be established as funds are used the services of photographer and concessioner J. E. provided for this purpose.”205 By 1919, both Mather’s Haynes, who maintained “a free information bureau for sense of how the parks could be used for educational the benefit of the public.”208 purposes and his efforts to promote the idea of parks as In 1920, Albright set up an information bureau

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 97 under the charge of Milton P. Skinner, whose life story animals.” The displays essentially informed visitors by was tightly interwoven with that of the park. Skinner had showing them “what the [park had] to offer and what first served as a guide while employed by the Yellowstone [could] be seen there by the observant visitor.”215 The Park Association at the Upper Geyser Basin in 1896. idea of adding historical exhibits that would illustrate He later became involved with an effort to interest the “the pioneer days of the West and the changes that have secretary of the interior in establishing an educational taken place since the times of the early explorers,” appears service and museum in the park, an effort that succeeded to have come from American writer and long-time park in generating interest but no money. In early 1919, visitor Emerson Hough. Among other exhibits Hough however, in “one of his first official acts as superinten- suggested was one focused on early transportation in dent of Yellowstone National Park,” Horace Albright the West: the park could exhibit examples of an ancient asked Skinner to organize an educational program for Indian travois, a stagecoach, an early pack saddle, a the park and appointed him park naturalist—the first bicycle, old snowshoes, and other equipment showing in the history of both the park and the NPS.209 Skinner “changes in transportation since the development of the immediately set about opening the information office West began.” Intrigued by the idea, Mather suggested and preparing and posting “monthly bulletins on birds, the park solicit contributions of items for use in such an animals, flowers, and geology . . . in all public places in historical exhibit.216 the park.” The office was supplied with “photographs, a Albright touted a “further most valuable feature ground relief map . . . a collection of wild flowers on the of the Information Service and one which was highly walls . . . a few geological specimens for exhibition . . . appreciated by tourists,” in his annual report for 1920: [and] maps, pamphlets, and circulars for free distribu- “the giving of free half-hour talks or lectures by Park tion and for sale.” Albright called the public’s response Ranger Isabel Bassett Wasson three times daily” in the “astonishing.” Approximately 10,100 visitors used the Mammoth area.217 A graduate of Wellesley College and bureau in 1920, and “appeared very much pleased with Columbia University, Wasson had impressed Albright the service rendered.” In addition to distributing general when he heard her speak on geysers and hot springs dur- informational circulars, pamphlets, and maps, informa- ing the summer of 1919.218 He had thought her then “a tion officers disseminated Skinner’s popular monthly splendid public speaker . . . [with] the ability to hold a bulletins, the “Yellowstone Nature Notes.”210 large audience while discussing scientific problems.”219 In 1921, Skinner’s small information office was When Albright hired Wasson, she became “the first expanded and moved to its present location in the former seasonal park ranger to be hired in the park by the NPS bachelor officers’ quarters at Fort Yellowstone (now the to give lectures.”220 The title of Wasson’s lecture that Albright Visitor Center).211 This information office also year was “How the Yellowstone Came to Be.” It was a doubled as the park’s first museum (the one to which “short discussion of the geological formation of the park Mather referred in his 1919 annual report). Albright expressed in non-technical language,” Albright wrote. mentioned the museum in his own 1921 annual report, This and other topics of interest to the traveling public saying that it would be developed “as fast as funds can be were covered in Wasson’s lectures that first year.221 spared for the purpose.”212 Over the three years he served Mather referred to such programs as “Camp fire as park naturalist, Skinner collected numerous specimens educational talks.”222 “Like other quests of knowledge,” for display in the museum, and by the time he resigned Mather wrote, “an intelligent study of nature is greatly as- in September 1922, the collection was so extensive that sisted by direction. Many persons who visit the parks are Skinner deemed the space too small and began using a thoroughly responsive to their influences,” he continued, room behind the office as museum space.213 Albright “but they lack the incentive born of knowledge to delve lauded the display exhibits, noting in his annual report, into a real understanding of things.” Such lectures and “To make the exhibits as interesting as possible, far more guided tours were designed to stimulate that incentive, than the usual care was taken in the preparation of the according to Mather.223 descriptive labels.”214 When Wasson was unable to return to the park Yellowstone’s first museum was established, as were in 1921, Albright hired park ranger Mary Rolfe to give most early national park museums, to “aid tourists in the daily, free, half-hour lectures on the park’s natural gaining an understanding of the geology of the [park] features. These lectures occurred on the porch of the and to assist them in identifying flowers, trees, birds, and Mammoth Hotel and later in the evening at the Mam-

98 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #128954 moth Camp.224 Rolfe, according to Albright, was “a fine enthusiastic girl, who tried very hard to please,” but her lectures, he felt, “were considerably more technical than [Wasson’s].” “[N]ot having [Wasson’s] training as a teacher of geology,” Rolfe, he believed, “had some diffi- culty presenting her subject.”225 However, he deemed the park’s educational work “satisfactory on the whole.”226 Indeed, the educational program of the 1921 season was extensive: a total of 83 lectures were delivered at the hotel, 77 at the camp, 54 in the public campground, and 66 at other points in the park. Specially trained park rangers also began providing guided trips to different points in the park. Thus was born the idea of NPS rangers, rather than park conces- sioners, being the park’s official guides. As Albright put it, he began using rangers as official guides “to furnish visi- tors with accurate information [and] to do away with the tipping practice . . . thus preserv[ing], as far as possible, the dignity of the park as one of our greatest national play grounds.”227 “The furnishing of guides from the ranger force,” Albright wrote in his monthly superintendent’s report for June 1921, “is a new idea, this service having been furnished heretofore by the hotels and camps.”228 During the 93-day travel season, 32,068 tourists took a total of 703 guided trips. Albright recorded that the Two park rangers. 1922. “service was very popular with the public, and brought many expressions of praise from travelers.”229 In addition, rangers also provided useful information and distributed Parks.”233 Later, the NPS would confirm this soft-ped- maps and pamphlets at the checking stations and “loop” aled emphasis in a statement of its philosophy regarding ranger stations.230 education in its general plan of administration for the When Rolfe was not rehired for the 1922 season, education division: temporary park ranger Frank E. A. Thone took over and delivered 232 lectures to about 60,000 tourists on “the [W]e are engaged in a specialized field of educa- park, its geology, flora, fauna, history, etc.” at Mam- tion in which our main objective is not primarily moth Hot Springs.231 Visitors also made use of the other to raise the intellectual standard of our visitors in educational programs offered in the park. Nearly 30,000 the academic sense. . . . Our function lies rather people visited the information office and museum at in the inspirational enthusiasm which we can de- Mammoth Hot Springs that year, and close to 40,000 velop among our visitors—and enthusiasm based tourists were guided by rangers “over the formations” at upon a sympathetic interpretation of the main the Upper Geyser Basin or at Mammoth Hot Springs things that the parks represent, whether these be while they listened to talks about these and other natural the wonder of animate things living in natural features.232 communities, or the story of creation as written The recently completed ranger stations/commu- in the rocks, or the history of forgotten races as nity centers at Old Faithful, Canyon, and Lake were also recorded by their picturesque dwellings.234 used as venues for these lectures. According to Haines, these facilities were perfectly suited to the “low-keyed The next park naturalist, Edmund J. Sawyer, appointed and entertaining” approach to education that the park in March 1924, was an artist and ornithologist who, initially adopted out of an “official fear lest suggestion with the help of Jack Haynes, kept the Mammoth of lessons and study would keep people away from the museum afloat until NPS officials had completed the

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 99 larger-scale education program on which they were and in prolonging the length of their stay. . . . It serves working, with specific objectives and a methodological the visitors, and it serves the community as well.”241 plan of action.235 Museums were not to be the showplaces they Progress on the education front at the national were in urban areas, however. They were merely venues level had been steady since 1917. In 1923, Ansel F. for learning about the real source of interest: the park’s Hall, park ranger, educational officer, and first park natural areas. “The national parks themselves are the real naturalist at Yosemite National Park, was appointed museums of nature,” Mather wrote in his 1925 annual chief naturalist of the National Park Service, and put in report, “and the park museum in each will simply serve as charge of educational programs in all the national parks. an index to the wonders that may be studied and enjoyed In 1924, Frank R. Oastler, a physician from New York on the ground by the observant student of nature.” In and a member of the National Conference on Outdoor this sense, park museums served a specific, circumscribed Education, was hired as a collaborator and consultant role. “[T]hey are to be regarded as places to stimulate the to work with Hall on “an organizational plan for the interest of visitors,” Mather wrote, “in the things of the educational division.”236 An actual division of educa- great outdoors by the presentation of exhibits telling in tion became a reality in 1925, and took its place on the a clear, consecutive way, the story of the park from its NPS’s administrative chart at a level equivalent to the geological beginning through all branches of history up Engineering and Landscape divisions.237 to and including the coming of man and his works. All Great strides in educational development were extraneous material is to be excluded.”242 made across the national park system following the cre- In fact, a museum had been opened in Yellowstone ation of the Education Division in 1925, including the that year: the Buffalo Jones Museum, housed in the log establishment of a programmatic approach to educating cabin built by buffalokeeper C. J. “Buffalo” Jones at the public. Education was also one of the two major the show herd area at Mammoth Hot Springs. Exhibits topics discussed at the 8th National Park Conference included photographs and specimens relating to the life in November 1925. The NPS’s new educational focus of Buffalo Jones, and to the early history of bison in the crystallized that year, when Secretary of the Interior Hu- park.243 Behind the buffalo museum and near the buf- bert Work ranked “education with recreation as a NPS falo corral, a zoo was established where animals were objective.”238 In his annual report, Mather quoted the displayed for visitors’ enjoyment and education. Ansel secretary’s comment that “[n]ature is the supreme school- Hall, in his annual report for 1926, noted that animal teacher as well as the master textbook. From nature can exhibits were part of the NPS’s educational program, be learned the scheme of creation and the handiwork specifically mentioning zoos (“mammals in captivity”) of the Great Architect as from no other source.” The and “attracting and taming animals” as acceptable edu- secretary had also described the educational effort as cational activities for national parks.244 In 1927, there “a new mission . . . which opens up a new field for the were “15 adult buffalo bulls, a yearling bull, a calf, a propagation of knowledge never before realized.”239 small band of adult elk, the captive bear Juno, a calf The other important factor in the growth of the elk, a fawn, [and] an antelope kid,” at the Yellowstone NPS’s educational emphasis was the development of a National Park zoo.245 museum program. Museums were essential to educat- Assistance from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller ing visitors because they both helped inform visitors Memorial and the American Association of Museums about what they would see as they traveled the park was crucial to the agency’s educational plan to construct and answered questions about what they might have numerous museums in many NPS units. The memo- already seen. In effect, museums prepared visitors to “use rial first granted money for constructing a museum in . . . parks and their resources as instruments of instruc- Yosemite National Park in 1924; the museum was com- tion.”240 Visitors who used parks as places of instruc- pleted in 1926. At that point, with the exception of the tion—as classrooms essentially—would be inclined to bison-specific Buffalo Jones Museum, Yellowstone was linger, Mather believed, and their visits would be more still making do with what Albright referred to as “some enjoyable. “Knowledge creates interest,” he wrote in interesting exhibits at the headquarters information of- his annual report, and “[i]nterest adds to enjoyment.” fice, which with some chagrin, we call a ‘museum.’”246 Furthermore, he argued, a “museum is a most valuable When Albright observed how helpful the museum at factor in drawing visitors, in awakening their interest, Yosemite was to visitors’ understanding of that park’s

100 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” natural features, he wrote the interior secretary to garner in no way detract from the “main exhibit which is the support for obtaining funding through the American park itself and its story.”251 Association of Museums. “The Museum is interpreting In 1928, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, the Yosemite to the people in a very effective way,” he which had first given money to the American Association wrote, “and not only are our visitors leaving it with a for Museums for a museum in Yosemite National Park in wider knowledge of the park and its natural features, but, 1924, provided the full $118,000 requested by Secretary unquestionably they are leaving it with a greater rever- Work for construction of the park’s new museums, with ence for this great playground which is reflected in their two stipulations: first, that any balance unexpended as recreational use of it.” Albright wanted a “museum at of December 31, 1929, revert to the memorial, and headquarters, branches at other points, and good equip- second, that no public announcement be made of the ment” to be “on a par with the Yosemite.”247 gift.252 Horace Albright’s “deep personal interest” in the Albright also asked Chauncey J. Hamlin, presi- value of park museums and his personal relationship with dent of the American Association of Museums, for help John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and family likely contributed constructing “small local museums” at Yellowstone to to the memorial’s decision to fund the four museums ensure that those visiting the park “receive information in Yellowstone.253 which will make their sojourn educationally as well as With these funds, the trailside museum concept recreationally profitable.”248 At about the same time, flourished in Yellowstone—even without the existence Interior Secretary Work also asked the Laura Spelman of a main museum. As Haines pointed out, these branch Rockefeller Memorial for help with “a complete edu- museums were intended to “provide a ‘hook-up between cational unit” that would in turn “serve as an example an object or spectacle charged with dynamic informa- and index for all future educational development in the tion and a mind that is receptive to informational other parks.” In particular, he requested funding for “a impulses.’”254 They were to be located “at points where small outdoor auditorium and museum at Old Faithful, some special features of natural history can best be dem- a general museum, reading room, and educational cen- onstrated.”255 Hence, each branch museum was to have a ter at Mammoth Hot Springs, small trailside museums theme. At Old Faithful, the theme was thermal activity; . . . ‘shrines’ placed at points of vantage throughout the at Norris, geology and mineralogy; and at Madison Junc- park,” and other minor expenses.249 Work’s idea of using tion, history. The museum to be built at Fishing Bridge small museums “advantageously placed and equipped would specialize in fauna and some geology.256 for the definite purpose of giving popular instruction” The first museum to be started was the one at Old fit Hall’s and Oastler’s concept of creating museums Faithful, designed by Herbert Maier, architect for the with branch—or “trailside”—museums associated with American Association of Museums. Construction on them, as outlined in their 1925 administration plan for the $8,500 building began in August 1928, and while the education division.250 it was scheduled to be completed before the end of the During the summer of 1928, Frank Oastler com- year, it was not until 1929 that the museum was “ready piled a study entitled, “Report on Educational Survey, for occupancy.” Vint, McCarter, and noted landscape National Park Service.” In it, he explained that parks architect Ferruccio Vitale, of the U.S. Commission of were not set aside for recreation alone, and that the Fine Arts, were in the park that summer to settle on full value of parks could be presented through educa- the exact location of the museum.257 Albright praised tion, which would “enable those who visit the National the structure, saying that in his judgment, it was “finer Parks to obtain an accurate interpretation of the natural than the one at Grand Canyon and far finer than the phenomena . . . of an unusual character not found else- one at Yosemite.” “The rock and log work is superb,” where.” Oastler called for creating branch museums to he concluded.258 Before the museum was finished, be located at significant points, and observation stations architect Maier decided to use a brown stain instead at particular sites for the purpose of demonstrations. of experimenting with grey stains for the exterior.259 In He believed that the proposed museums should inspire 1929, the museum, known as the Museum of Thermal and stimulate investigations; be used for reference and Activity, opened to the public and remained operational scientific investigations; and provide information such until it was torn down and replaced with a new visitor as published guides, visual education, and scientific center in 1971.260 material. Oastler cautioned that the museums should Maier also designed museums for Madison

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 101 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #44321

Madison Museum. 1930.

Junction, Fishing Bridge, and Norris Geyser Basin. The interior, an illusion to be sought wherever the objective smallest of the three was the museum at Madison, built is the interpretation of surrounding Nature.”262 in 1929. A one-story, T-shaped structure with a gabled The museum at Norris, also started in 1929, has and shingled roof, it had “[b]attered rubble masonry” been called “the most architecturally imposing” of the reaching to sill height and double-coursed shingles cover- three. The one-story, rectangular structure featured an ing the rest of the structure. Finishing touches included open-air foyer in the center that led to a flagstone terrace gable ends finished “with tree shapes and diamond overlooking the geyser basin, and stone steps leading patterns sawn into the boards,” and a “wrought-iron down to it. The wings of the building were used for sign stating ‘trailside museum’” hanging over the front exhibit, office, and living space. Shingled, hipped roofs entrance. Outside, a “flagstone terrace enclosed by low covered the wings, while a shingled gable roof—the main walls” extended out from the museum and overlooked roof—covered the foyer. The exterior consisted of stone the confluence of the Madison and Gibbon rivers. Two walls with “extreme batters which emphasize[d] the fluid, plaques embedded in natural stone memorialized impor- irregular shapes of the boulders” below and double rows tant elements of Yellowstone’s history and legend. One of wood shingles above. The interior of both the Norris commemorated Stephen Mather, who resigned in 1929 and Madison museums consisted of “exposed . . . mas- due to health problems, and the other commemorated sive posts with their knots and growths worn smooth the fireside discussion purported to have taken place by the thousands of visitors who run their hands across among members of the Washburn/Langford/Doane them each summer as they pass through the building.” expedition in September 1870, that was long claimed to A wrought-iron sign reading “Norris Museum” was hung have generated the Yellowstone Park idea (the veracity of over the front entrance.263 The Fishing Bridge Museum, this story has come to be questioned).261 Albert Good, planned in 1929 but built in 1930–1931, will be dis- author of a catalogue of park architecture, referred to cussed in the following chapter. the Madison Museum as “[m]inor in size, but not in its Maier’s museums were, according to Laura Soul- contribution to park architecture.” He especially lauded liere Harrison, architectural historian and author of the museum’s natural look and its ability to draw the Architecture in the Parks, significant contributions to inside out and the outside in. “The pitch of the roof and national park architecture for two reasons: “First, the the texture of the selected logs conspire with the rakish buildings are the best structures of rustic design in the buttressing of the well-scaled rock work to deserve un- National Park System,” and second, “because of their qualified acclaim,” he wrote. “The spacious ‘landscape’ exaggerated architectural features and organic forms, window serves to project the outdoors into the museum the buildings served as models for hundreds of other

102 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #44325 buildings constructed throughout the nation in state, county, and local parks under the auspices of the NPS during the work relief programs of the 1930s.”264 Har- rison contended that “Maier’s buildings were perfect solutions for an architecture appropriate to the outdoors: informal, through their use of natural materials and horizontal lines, but loaded with a strength of design and heavy-handed expression that subconsciously sug- gested the smallness of man in relation to nature.”265 Maier accomplished this effect through design elements common to both traditional bungalow structures—his “battered stonework, clipped gables, and low, horizontal emphasis,” for example—and a new architectural notion Norris Museum construction. 1930. of fitting structures into the nature of their immediate

surroundings. As Harrison explained, Maier’s buildings YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #44327 “responded to their sites . . . and appropriately fit the contours of the landscape.” “[I]n Maier’s buildings,” she wrote, “the onsite and locally-available materials were left more in their natural condition, reflecting the scale and roughness of the surrounding wilderness.” She listed the design attributes that helped achieve this “response” and “appropriateness:”

The enormous logs of the Yellowstone museums were peeled but not sawn, and their rustic knots were left in place giving a tactile richness to the building form. The boulders of the heavily battered walls were left in their natural shapes. Their massive sizes and irregular shapes were emphasized, like the irregularities in nature . . . Ranger and visitors viewing exhibits at Norris Museum. 1930. Maier banked all three museums into the gentle contours, and provided observation terraces that were at least half the size of the interior floor materials in a way that seemed as if the building had just spaces. He even provided tree wells in the ter- grown of its own accord on the site.”268 races to accommodate the larger specimens that While branch museums had become a reality, Su- existed on the sites prior to construction. The perintendent Albright still wanted a “big headquarters terraces encouraged visitors to spend more time museum” to house the displays on exhibit at the old outside enjoying the local features and, hopefully, bachelor officers’ quarters at Mammoth Hot Springs.269 to reflect on what they had learned and seen in In his 1928 annual report, Albright wrote that the site the museums.266 for the Mammoth museum had “been temporarily located and [would] . . . be built upon next spring.”270 Maier’s buildings best exhibit the notion that struc- Plans were upended, however, when Vitale suggested that tures of any kind in a national park should harmonize “everything . . . at Mammoth Hot Springs ultimately be with nature to the point of being almost unnoticeable. scrapped and replaced by a new plan” in the NPS’s at- Maier himself claimed that buildings in national parks tempt to “develop a general plan for the reconstruction were “necessary evils,” and argued that “even the finest of the Yellowstone Park headquarters.” Albright argued building . . . is somewhat of an intruder.”267 As Harrison in favor of keeping the fort as the headquarters: “The wrote, Maier’s success lay in his ability to minimize “that more I think about the proposition, the more I think it intrusion by maximizing the use of indigenous building is of tremendous interest to the public to have here in the

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 103 park an old army fort, and that we could do a lot worse Visitors had been receiving NPS ranger-guided tours of than keep the old fort,” he wrote to Acting Director Arno the Old Faithful and Mammoth formations since 1921. Cammerer in August 1928, against the creation of a new In 1924, when Albright hired experienced teacher and plan.271 “I am frank to say . . . ” wrote Albright, “that I naturalist H. S. Conard of Grinnell College, Iowa, to have no particular enthusiasm for the new plan, largely direct activities and field trips at Camp Roosevelt, their for the reason that I think it is going to be a good many options for guided tours expanded to the Tower area as years before anything can be done in the way of carry- well.277 As nature guiding became an educational prior- ing it out. The investments here are simply too heavy ity in 1925, the rangers who led these tours became to consider as being subject to expensive change in any known as ranger naturalists, a title that was codified reasonable period of time.”272 His practical concerns were in 1926, when the first Ranger Naturalists’ Manual was real—and as it turned out, correct—and work on the published. 278 The manual, considered “an accomplish- headquarters museum was postponed indefinitely. ment of great importance,” was intended to help ranger In the meantime, Albright suggested that the naturalists and park rangers with their guiding and lec- Landscape Department work out “a general design of turing responsibilities, and was compiled by Jack Haynes, the future buildings to be erected at Mammoth Hot who continued to serve as unpaid acting director of the Springs and adopt a type of architecture and build along park’s museum.279 the lines laid down by such design, rather than count In the 1927 edition of the manual, Albright on ultimately replacing all of the buildings we have at referred to the ranger naturalists as “the faculty of the these headquarters.”273 But his suggestion—even with biggest summer school of nature study on earth—a Cammerer’s tentative approval—did not go forward. “If school of 200,000 pupils!”280 According to historian insuperable difficulties occur whereby certain buildings Paul Schullery, these ranger naturalists did “more to [such as the museum] must be up in the public interest shape the public impression of rangers than all the rest before such a plan is finished,” Cammerer wrote back [of the rangers], because each of these men . . . talked to to Albright, who was then both superintendent of Yel- thousands of tourists, contributing much to the image lowstone and assistant field director of the NPS, “they of the ranger as both self-reliant woodsman and expert may be permitted on approved locations ‘temporarily’ naturalist.”281 with the understanding that if any changes are desirable It soon became clear to Chief Naturalist Hall that as regards to site when the new plan has been approved, ranger naturalists were only able to serve roughly 80 per- it will be done later.”274 The NPS chose to postpone con- cent of the park’s visitors—“this in spite of the fact that struction of the museum, which disappointed Albright: they were conducting parties of as many as 200 over the “I still hope we can get the situation here cleared up so formations [at Old Faithful, for example] at one time.”282 the big museum can be erected here next summer,” he Hall then instituted three projects which in turn set in wrote to a museum supporter in 1928. “We certainly motion a whole system of nature and self-guiding trails: need that building very, very badly.”275 the “complete labeling of the [Mammoth] Formation Another educational facility built in the park in Trail . . . [t]he complete labeling, in the same manner, the 1920s was the new fish hatchery at Yellowstone of the Black Sand Basin Trail . . . [and] [t]he construc- Lake. This facility, which was largely constructed with tion and maintenance of a Nature Trail to Observation private funds from one V. N. Corey, was designed by the Point, Solitaire [sic—Solitary] Geyser, and other points NPS’s Landscape Division, and included what Albright of interest.”283 By 1929, enough trails were in place for called some of the best log work he had ever seen. In ranger naturalist Newell R. Joyner to write of the system, a report on the construction of the new museums and “Self-guiding trails have been established on the forma- hatchery, Albright stated that it was built with “special tions at Mammoth and Old Faithful and on the nature consideration for the needs of the educational division” trails at those places. Self-explanatory signs are placed in that it would “be possible to take large crowds through so that they are a help to those who find it impossible, the building under the guidance of a ranger naturalist, or who do not care to accompany the Ranger Naturalist without in any way impairing the operations of the who conducts the guide party. These self-guiding trails Bureau of Fisheries.”276 are another effort to render all the service possible to the Another way for visitors to “hook up” to the guests of the park.”284 park’s spectacles was through ranger-led guided tours. By 1928, three additional developments colored

104 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #44328

Norris Museum. 1930. the education picture at Yellowstone: the creation of very high order and absolutely indispensible [sic].”287 a Committee on Study of Educational Problems in In the summer of 1928, Frank Oastler completed National Parks, with the well-known biologist John C. a survey of educational needs in Yellowstone. He found Merriam as chair; the appointment of Dorr G. Yeager as that the most important story at the park was its geol- head naturalist and chief of educational programming ogy, followed by its wildlife. Oastler suggested that a in the park, replacing E. J. Sawyer; and the agreement main museum be built at Mammoth, trail museums at that Carl P. Russell, park naturalist from Yosemite, Clematis Gulch (at Mammoth), Grand Canyon, and would help with educational programming in Yellow- Camp Roosevelt, and an observation station at Capitol stone. Merriam’s committee underscored the idea that Hill. He recommended an auditorium and library to “the purpose of national parks is to be found in their complement both the Mammoth and Old Faithful mu- inspirational and educational values,” while Yeager, an seums, and noted that the park was currently exhibiting early graduate of the Yosemite School of Field Natural historical objects as well as natural history displays, in History (a naturalist training program established in the form of an old stagecoach situated outside the small 1925), oversaw the construction of the park’s premier museum at Mammoth.288 Oastler also recommended trailside museums and stayed active in the park for three wildflower gardens, with labeled beds, at each important years.285 Russell, a naturalist at Yosemite National Park, point; he disliked the “zoo” approach but recommended was dispatched to Yellowstone at the recommendation that “every effort be made by planting food, salt, seed, of Hermon C. Bumpus, chairman of the American As- bird baths, etc. in certain places to attract wild life about sociation of Museums, to advise, among other things, on the areas where the people gather.” He also encouraged exhibit installation at the new trailside museum at Old the construction of nature trails.289 Most of these ideas Faithful. Bumpus intended for Russell, who was consid- bore fruit. ered the museum specialist in the education division, to By 1929, guided tours had been added at Lake help with “several problems connected with the general (1926), Canyon (1928), Fishing Bridge (1929), and educational program, such as the strengthening of the West Thumb (1929). That year alone, 87,192 visitors lecture system, the improvement of the field work, and were instructed by means of these tours.290 The lecture the creation of facilities the better to meet the needs of service was expanded by then to include “twelve lectures those visiting the park in their own cars, accompanied, as . . . daily at the main points of the loop”: three at Mam- many are, by younger members of the family.”286 Albright moth, two at Old Faithful, one at West Thumb, two at was thrilled at the prospect of having Russell, who did Canyon, two at Lake, one at Fishing Bridge, and one not actually start work in Yellowstone until 1929, on site at Tower. In addition to these lectures, a ranger natu- in the park, and considered Russell’s work “as being of ralist gave several talks throughout the day on Mount

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 105 Washburn.291 The ranks of ranger naturalists had also to kill predatory animals, as evidenced by the numbers grown. During the summer months, park naturalist of predators killed during this time and the comments Dorr Yeager and his head ranger naturalist were joined accompanying these statistics. “An intensive campaign by sixteen ranger naturalists and one park ranger.292 Even to destroy predatory animals, such as the wolf, coyote, with an increase in the number of ranger naturalists and and mountain lion, has met with gratifying success,” the existence of self-guiding trails, there were still too Mather wrote in 1918, a year when 190 coyotes and 36 many tourists trying to fit into too few guided tours. wolves were taken.295 Thus, each year park officials called for more money for Predatory species were exterminated primarily more ranger naturalists. because Superintendent Albright, his superiors, and his rangers believed that those animals did “much damage to other game.”296 Their job, they believed, was protecting Protection wildlife even if that wildlife had to be protected from the natural process of predation. In an era before ecosystem While ranger naturalists were responsible for the relationships were well understood, their view was not education of visitors, park rangers were responsible unusual. But there was something else at work: politics. for protecting the park’s resources, chief among which Put simply, wildlife protection was popular. “The de- were wildlife and park thermal areas. The protection velopment and protection of the wild animal life in the department also established and implemented policies park, which was only considered of secondary interest for regarding the protection of the park’s natural and cultural many years, has become [sic] to be generally known as features. The first decade of NPS administration saw a feature of utmost importance to the public,” Albright little change in the park’s position on wildlife preserva- wrote in 1918. “Our animals are becoming tamer and tion. The tame bison herd was still tended on the reserve more is seen of them from year to year.”297 Albright’s on the Lamar River, and hay was still harvested for its positive spin on the notion that the park’s wild animals use and for feeding herds of elk, deer, and pronghorn. were becoming “tamer” is indicative of the vastly differ- Predators—in particular mountain lions, wolves, and ent value system and management philosophy espoused coyotes—were still being exterminated, while bears by the NPS at the time, compared to today.298 were considered a major park attraction and were thus According to former NPS employee C. C. Presnall, exploited for tourist pleasure. predator control was not questioned in the agency until When the NPS took control of Yellowstone’s wild about 1930. To that point, he wrote, “a great majority of residents, its position regarding wildlife closely resembled people, including NPS officials took it for granted that that of the military: to protect game species from the rig- complete protection of wildlife involved elimination or ors of winter, predators, and the encroachment of human drastic control of all predators. The term ‘extermination habitation, and in doing so, to create herds of wildlife of predators’ appears often . . . in official business.”299 unafraid of the human presence. “We may now invite

the traveler to visit Yellowstone,” Mather wrote in 1917, YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #43915 “. . . where there is . . . opportunity for communion with nature, its wild flowers, its trees, and its rippling streams, where wild animals, gentle and unafraid, are to be seen in abundance, and where all is fresh and calm and beauti- ful.”293 Mather’s “gentle and unafraid” wild animals were herds of deer, antelope, elk, and bison. They were most certainly not the wolves, mountain lions, and coyotes that also called the park home, but rather were targeted for extermination. Thus, the park’s policy of wildlife protection included game animals and, at least most of the time, bears. “The killing of wild animals, except predatory animals when absolutely necessary, is strictly forbidden in Yellowstone Park by law,” Mather wrote in “Pete” the mule deer begging for food at a Mammoth Hot 1917.294 Park officials felt it was “absolutely necessary” Springs residence. 1920.

106 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Thus, while some ecologists outside the park were begin- “balance of nature,” they remained concerned that the ning to revise their thoughts about predator control and herds were vulnerable. Thus, the park increased its ef- coming to very different conclusions from Albright’s and forts to turn land to hay-raising and the NPS increased Mather’s about the value of predators in ecosystems, the pressure on Congress to extend the park’s boundaries, NPS continued to support predator control in order to thereby creating additional winter range. Haying contin- remain true to Albright’s and Mather’s understanding of ued in the Lamar Valley, both at the buffalo ranch and the park’s mandate.300 at Slough Creek, with additional acres irrigated there By 1926, this policy was relaxed to include mildly as well as on the 45-acre tract at the North Entrance.306 stated concerns about possible extermination, but the In 1925, private citizens, organized into the Gallatin end result remained the same: “It is contrary to the Game Preservation Company (GGPC), contributed policy of the service to exterminate any species native $50,000 toward the purchase of lands north and west to a park area,” Mather wrote in his annual report, “but of Gardiner, Montana. This land was intended for use it is necessary to keep several of the predatory animals, as foraging ground for the “dwindling” pronghorn and such as wolves, mountain lions, and coyotes, under con- elk populations. Because the group knew that any plan trol, in order that the deer, antelope, and other weaker Superintendent Albright might propose to extend the animals may not suffer unduly from their predations.”301 park’s boundaries would likely be hindered by govern- Albright’s term as director of the NPS (he followed ment bureaucracy as well as local politics, the GGPC, Mather in the position from 1929 to 1933) resulted which had already purchased one large ranch, planned in no immediate change in either the park’s policy or to turn the land over to the park. It was hoped that the practice of extermination: “While no species of animal government would purchase an equally large section indigenous to a park is ever exterminated,” he wrote, of land. This purchase involved the Reese Creek and “those that prey too heavily upon the weaker animals are Stephens Creek areas.307 reduced in number, in an endeavor to retain as nearly In March 1926, President Calvin Coolidge signed as possible the balance of nature.”302 The “balance of “An act to make additions to the Absaroka and Gallatin nature” idea, popular with many ecologists of the 1920s National Forests and the Yellowstone National Park and and 1930s, would prove to be a double-edged sword adjacent lands, and for other purposes,” which enabled in Yellowstone.303 As is indicated by Albright’s use of the GGPC to turn over land already purchased to the the term as a justification for continued tinkering with government and supported the NPS’s efforts to add more predator–prey relationships, it would lead, on the one land to the park for pronghorn and elk preservation, to hand, to decades of interventionist wildlife manage- cultivate hay, and to establish winter feeding grounds. ment, including the removal from the park of 26,400 The previous November, the W. M. Hoppe ranch (ap- elk between 1923 and 1968 by means of live shipping proximately 1,000 acres) had been purchased, and nearly and direct reduction, out of concern that they were 135 tons of hay produced.308 The GGPC continued to overgrazing the park’s northern range.304 On the other raise funds for the addition of more land in this area. hand, it provided the seeds of later, more sophisticated The effort to extend the park’s boundaries was success- ecological thinking that served as the basis for putting fully completed in 1929, when the park “was enlarged a complete halt to the killing of predators and elk (and by 78 square miles through boundary revisions on the bison) reductions and, much later, for actually restoring north and east.”309 These boundary adjustments were a major predator—the wolf—to its rightful place in the made at the recommendation of the President’s Coor- park. But in Albright’s time, the “balance” remained dinating Commission on National Parks and National clearly tipped toward the game species. Forests.310 Meanwhile, the park’s herds of bison and elk grew. At the root of such attempts to improve the park’s By 1922, officials believed that there were “surplus” bulls herds of game species lay a simple equation: more animals in the managed bison herd. Two years later, the herd equaled more tourists. Frank Oastler, in his survey of had grown to 780 head and the NPS was looking for educational opportunities for Yellowstone, recognized ways to “dispens[e] of buffalo meat in large quantities” the value of guaranteeing visitors a vista replete with graz- (today’s population hovers around 4,000 animals).305 ing animals. Thus he suggested that a “hidden fence” be Though park officials were by this time convinced that constructed in the Lamar Valley near Mount Washburn the growing size of the park’s elk herds threatened the to enclose buffalo and elk for visitor viewing.311 Accord-

“Nature is the Supreme School-Teacher” 107 ing to Schullery, Albright implemented this suggestion was an obvious need to keep bears from harming any and “arranged for the construction of several miles of tourists—hence the positioning of park rangers armed carefully placed corral in the Antelope Creek drainage with rifles at the dumps during “visiting hours” —tour- on the lower north slopes of Mount Washburn.” “Much ists were encouraged to watch the show. In 1925, special of the fencing was obscured by trees, giving the effect of bear feeding platforms were constructed at each dump open range,” he added.312 Furthermore, throughout this ground to facilitate viewing of these NPS-sanctioned period, bison continued to be kept in captivity at Mam- events.315 Bear watching, Albright recognized, was “one moth Hot Springs as a popular tourist attraction. of the most interesting features of the park,” but it was Superintendent Albright’s efforts to protect game an inherently risky business.316 By the 1930s, as bears’ species extended to another creature, one that has come wariness of humans decreased and their dependence to be recognized as the symbol of Yellowstone—the bear. on human foods increased, park officials admitted that Albright knew that the public’s fascination with the bear Yellowstone had a serious “bear problem.” But the bear enhanced visitation to the park. Thus, he considered it a shows continued until 1941, when they were finally species to be “protected” and controlled only when hu- ended for good.317 man life or property was threatened. “I doubt if anything in the park creates a more lasting interest and pleasure in the minds of most tourists,” wrote Albright in 1918, Conclusion “than does a small herd of elk or a few scattering deer seen along the road; a herd of bison in the pasture at The beginning of a new decade heralded change Mammoth, or on Lamar River, where the main herd is for Yellowstone. In 1929, Stephen Mather resigned as kept; a porcupine along the roadside, which the driver director of the NPS, and Horace Albright returned to will be careful to avoid, if his car is not equipped with Washington after ten years in the park to take over as puncture-proof tires; and best of all, the bears, which the new director. Roger Toll, superintendent at Rocky frequent the camps and hotels, where they beg for food, Mountain National Park, replaced Albright at the helm although they are already so fat that they can hardly climb of Yellowstone’s administration. Furthermore, Octo- a tree if startled.”313 The park superintendent considered ber 1929 saw the beginning of the Great Depression, it good news when bear numbers or sightings were up; which had a tremendous impact on Yellowstone (and bears were clearly regarded as a “never-ending source of the entire nation) for twelve years. But even with these pleasure to the tourists.”314 radical changes, the management of the nation’s first park Albright’s attitude led to the institution of one forged ahead. With its solid foundation in educational of the park’s most historically notorious activities: the programming, Yellowstone was positioned to remain an staging of bears feeding at garbage dumps around the important component of the nation’s recreational arena. park. In 1921, Albright wrote in his annual report, “[t]he And with experience gained in planning and aesthetically garbage dumps at Mammoth, Old Faithful, Lake, and coordinating the park’s built environment, park officials Canyon were used as [feeding sites], and were regularly were prepared to make continuing adjustments to the visited by people from hotels and camps.” While there park’s cultural landscape.

108 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” CHAPTER SIX

Refuge in Rusticity

Yellowstone National Park in the Great Depression

The 1930s brought considerable change to Yel- a standstill, and as rail travel and hotel visits plummeted, lowstone National Park. While the nation reeled from a record number of Americans opted for roughing it by the effects of the Great Depression, the park continued driving to the park and making use of its free public its mission of providing recreational and educational campgrounds. Park officials responded with more and opportunities for an ailing nation. During this period, better-equipped campgrounds.4 the public viewed the park alternately as an unnecessary To provide opportunities for refuge, recreation, and luxury, as an opportunity to get America back to work, education, the NPS continued to improve Yellowstone’s and as a place of refuge. Each of these viewpoints in infrastructure and educational programming. Initially, turn forced park officials to adjust their plans for park a reduction in federal park appropriations resulted in improvements. The result was an adventure in rustic- a decrease in funding for construction projects and a ity—a built landscape and educational programs that cut in professional manpower to manage the park’s re- emphasized the rustic splendor of Yellowstone. sources. With the New Deal, however, the government As Superintendent Roger Toll (1929–1936) under- came to the park’s rescue in the form of Emergency statedly put it: “An unsettled state of affairs throughout Conservation Work (ECW), undertaken by the Civil- the country had its effect on the travel and business ian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Public Works in Yellowstone National Park.” Initially, fewer tourists Administration (PWA). Support from these agencies visited the park, causing notable financial strain on con- inspired NPS officials to forge ahead with a master plan cessioners who “found it necessary to retrench consider- for the park, which was completed in 1933. The notion ably.”1 When tourist numbers rebounded, they did so of coordinating and planning all aspects of the park’s largely because financially strapped Americans realized built environment continued throughout the period, they could recreate in the park for relatively little money. resulting in tremendous growth and programmatic “In the present trying times, as never before,” wrote Na- changes in the Landscape Architecture Division under tional Park Service (NPS) Director Horace M. Albright, Thomas C. Vint. The division grew considerably during travelers “appreciated our varied accommodations built this period as, according to one account, it “found itself to meet the requirements of all pocketbooks.”2 Visitors, on the cutting edge of the New Deal.”5 according to Albright, “unquestionably found life in the During this period, the NPS emphasized rustic mountains and woods and along the streams and lakes architecture with unobtrusive structures made from na- restful and healthful and in every way worth while, and tive materials that fit into a park’s natural surroundings. at the same time realized that simple camp life offers While the details of this rusticity were carefully worked more opportunities for the practice of economy than out by Vint and his co-workers, it is hard to call it a style. oftentimes can be found at home.”3 Thus, while conces- Rather, as William C. Tweed, author of Parkitecture: A sioners suffered serious losses, bringing some projects to History of Rustic Building Design in the National Park

Refuge in Rusticity 109 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #19431 System, 1916–1942, wrote, rustic architecture “was a number of styles sharing a central concept or ethic.” The point was to create structures made from local materials that harmonized with but did not overpower the natural surroundings. The architects practicing this rusticity referred to “their numerous design styles” as “parkitecture.”6 The “parkitecture” of Yellowstone was log—or log-frame—construction of simple design that harmonized with its immediate surroundings. The park’s informational and educational programs also emphasized a form of rusticity by giving more tourists the opportunity to learn about, experience, and appreciate the park—albeit through structured tours and programs whose formats were derived from modern life. Adjusting to the times, the park created a new kind of guided tour: the auto caravan. Yellowstone officials also spent a considerable amount of time and money developing a popular, but highly unnatural, “educa- tional” program—the bear show. Thus, just as Americans “. . . sought and found . . . diversion, recreation, and rest” in the nation’s first national park, so they found that diversion in a “naturalistic” built and educational environment that emphasized rusticity.7

The Administrators

Roger Wolcott Toll was appointed superintendent of Yellowstone on February 1, 1929, following Albright’s departure to become NPS director in January of that year. Toll, superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park Superintendent Roger Toll. 1929. at the time of his transfer to Yellowstone, was an engineer by training—he had attended the University of Denver and Columbia University—and had joined the NPS “less outstanding than they might have been.” Toll was in 1919 as superintendent of Mount Rainier National on such a mission “to investigate the possibility of es- Park. Toll was superintendent during the largest road tablishing international parks and wildlife refuges along building project to date in Yellowstone, and one of the the Mexican–American border,” when he and Wildlife most active periods of building construction. Wilderness Division Chief George Wright—two of the brightest and areas were set aside during his administration, and Toll best of the second generation of park managers—were extended NPS wildlife protection to include previously killed in an automobile accident near Deming, New persecuted predators such as the pelicans and coyotes.8 Mexico, on February 25, 1936.10 In addition, it was Toll who recognized that Yellowstone During Toll’s many absences, two assistant su- had a serious “bear problem,” and called in biologists perintendents, Guy D. Edwards and John W. Emmert, from the NPS’s Wildlife Division to assess the situation managed the park. Emmert had a long tenure with and make recommendations for improving visitor safety the NPS. A student of electrical engineering, he was and natural conditions in the park.9 However, because employed at Yosemite National Park from 1912 until Toll left the park each winter to tackle servicewide issues his transfer to Yellowstone in 1934. Upon Toll’s death, from an office in Denver, his seven years as superinten- Emmert served as acting superintendent of the park until dent of Yellowstone were, according to Aubrey Haines, May 1936, when Edmund Burrell Rogers, following in

110 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Toll’s footsteps by leaving the superintendency of Rocky What the park needed to continue its improve- Mountain National Park, became Yellowstone’s third ment and protection schedule was a large infusion of NPS superintendent. Rogers’s tenure as superintendent money and manpower. It received both from the Civilian was of record-setting length—twenty years. His adminis- Conservation Corps (CCC), the force of unemployed tration, according to Haines, “began on the hopeful side men and youth put to work on resource-related public of the Great Depression, struggled through the doldrums projects as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s of World War II, and had to settle for preserving park Emergency Conservation Work (ECW). The ECW values during the postwar resurgence of travel.” Haines program was enacted on March 31, 1933, just weeks noted that Rogers was efficient and diplomatic, and after Roosevelt’s inauguration. Under the provisions of that his administration handled a threefold increase in Roosevelt’s executive order, the unemployed were put visitation (nearly 1.5 million people visited Yellowstone to work “in the construction, maintenance and carrying in 1956), with relative success, “despite [the] appalling on of works of a public nature in connection with the obsolescence of physical facilities.”11 Rogers accepted forestation of lands . . . the prevention of forest fires, the job of special assistant to the director of the NPS in floods and soil erosion, plant pest and disease control, 1956, and retired in 1960. [and] the construction, maintenance or repair of paths, These administrators had their work cut out for trails and fire lanes in the national parks and national them. Overseeing the nation’s first and largest park forests. . . .”15 during a time of economic catastrophe certainly proved The CCC proved vital to park operations. As challenging, but in several important ways, the govern- Matthew Redinger wrote in his study of the CCC in ment response to that same disaster actually made Toll’s Yellowstone, “Faced with reduced appropriations in the and Rogers’s jobs easier. Assistance—both in the form depth of the Depression, any park expansion or develop- of funding and manpower—provided by New Deal ment to accomplish the end of making the parks more programs resulted in numerous park improvements. attractive seemed unrealistic. The establishment of the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1933 changed all that.”16 The NPS recognized the CCC’s essential contribution The Civilian Conservation Corps Makes to the well-being of the park, and made ready use of Its Mark on the Park the organization. The “CCC boys,” as they were called, provided the park with tens of thousands of “man-days” The decade of the 1930s dawned grey and dreary of work that it would not have had otherwise. As Super- for Yellowstone. The “unsettled state of affairs through- intendent Rogers explained in his 1936 annual report, out the country” quickly clouded the park’s future: a “All work accomplished by the companies located here 12-percent decrease in visitors in 1931, followed by a has been very much worthwhile and of great benefit 3-percent decrease the following year, and a 29-percent with lasting result.”17 decrease in 1933, meant fewer Americans would benefit All CCC and ECW work was supervised by from the park’s instructive and recreational benefits and landscape architects working in each park. “The CCC fewer dollars would arrive in concessioners’ and the technical staff—architects, landscape architects, and NPS’s coffers.12 Park funds, already severely reduced by engineers—were actually employed by the National Park forest fires in 1931, were hit hard by a considerable cut Service through ECW funds,” wrote historian Linda in appropriations. The effects on park improvement and McClelland.18 Thus, all improvement work—structural, protection were significant. Personnel pay cuts of 8 ⅓ landscape, and trail—fit a landscape improvement plan percent in 1932 were increased to 15 percent in 1933.13 devised by Vint’s office. One CCC undertaking was the Building maintenance and construction projects were construction of smaller-scale projects. Workers built also affected by reduced appropriations. In 1933, there cabins, cottages, comfort stations, and garages. Accord- were 245 government buildings in the park, many of ing to Timothy Mann’s 1981 summary of their work which required considerable maintenance work, and in Yellowstone, the CCC took responsibility for most an allotment of only $12,000 to cover expenses. This of the construction at the Lamar buffalo ranch and the represented a 15-percent decrease in appropriations—a residential area just below Mammoth headquarters.19 worrisome reduction, because a majority of the buildings Furthermore, the CCC built, maintained, and improved were many decades old.14 trails throughout the park. For example, they worked

Refuge in Rusticity 111 each summer on the 157-mile Howard Eaton Trail along cleanup effort fit closely with landscape architects’ no- the Grand Loop Road, “blasting out tripping hazards tion of park beautification, and was informed as much (rocks and logs) and grading for a more comfortable by their concern for scenery preservation as for fire [horse] ride.”20 hazard elimination. Later in the decade, however, the CCC workers also helped with the protection ac- cleanup was criticized by biologists studying ways to keep tivities of Yellowstone’s rangers. The shortage of money Yellowstone’s fauna both wild and available for public meant fewer seasonal rangers, which led to a heavier viewing. Later still, such cleanup efforts were actually workload for permanent employees. By assuming some considered ecologically harmful. of the “easier” enforcement and protection-oriented The range of projects undertaken by the CCC to tasks, CCC workers allowed park rangers to devote make the park “more attractive and comfortable for visi- their time to tasks requiring expertise, experience, and tors” is daunting.30 They built and ran a large nursery on training. For example, they staffed entrance stations and the newly acquired section of land just northwest of Gar- helped out in the museums. In addition, they helped diner, Montana, then called the “Game Ranch” (added maintain Yellowstone’s burgeoning elk herd by provid- to the park in 1932 after the Gallatin Game Preservation ing better cover and browse areas with reforestation Company spent several years buying up private holdings projects and their involvement with elk feeding. They between Gardiner and Reese Creek, now referred to as also participated in efforts to cull the elk herd when park the Stephens Creek area) for purposes of raising trees for officials began to recognize that “too many elk” would the reforestation of campgrounds and burned areas in prove harmful to the park’s resources.21 At the Lower Yellowstone and Glacier national parks.31 This nursery, a Slough Creek Ranch, CCC workers set up spike camps, very important ECW project, was the source of all plant- then built elk traps and slaughtered animals selected by ings—trees and shrubs—used to beautify the park and to NPS rangers for removal.22 hide traces of human disturbance throughout the park. CCC workers also worked on protection projects Plantings also concealed construction scars and helped aimed at eradicating whitebark pine blister rust and blend developments “harmoniously into the surround- bark beetle infestations, and on fire hazard reduction ing environment,” wrote McClelland. “So successful was projects.23 By 1936, they had built and were staffing landscape naturalization,” she continued, “that, in most eight fire lookouts. They also constructed fire caches, [cases], it is impossible today to distinguish the planted cut fire breaks, and built fire trails.24 In fact, during the vegetation from the natural and the construction site years the CCC was active in the park, fire control and from its undisturbed setting.”32 protection activities were at an all-time high. According Plantings were also used to improve the appear- to Redinger, the “CCC provided the Park Service with ance of the park’s campgrounds. Under guidance from a source of manpower and finances that enabled the the landscape architects, CCC workers developed and Service to implement the increased fire protection plans improved campgrounds in the park for “greater beauty of the Forest Protection Board.”25 Stephen Pyne, author and utility.”33 Developing and extending campgrounds of a history of fire and firefighting in America, claimed involved more than planting; it entailed “paving the for- that the CCC fire work amounted to a revolution in fire est for parking spaces to accommodate the new onslaught management, providing the basis for “practically all of of automobiles, building and improving roads, relocating the organized crews so essential to modern fire control.”26 the trails around the project areas, and developing the wa- In 1938, according to Redinger, “the height of CCC ter and sewer lines to accommodate the increased bathing fire protection in [Yellowstone], each camp had a flying facilities and comfort stations.” Campers also benefited squad and a backup on call for two days each, and each from new fireplaces, grills, picnic tables, benches, garbage ranger station had a small smokechaser crew.”27 dumps and pit toilets.34 According to the first director As part of their fire suppression work, CCC work- of the EWC, Robert Fechner, the CCC’s improvement, ers busied themselves with roadside cleanup, another development, and expansion of campgrounds made it job that required little experience or training, and little possible for Yellowstone to accommodate more visitors, supervision.28 In addition to the garbage they removed, and made “it easier and more pleasant for men, women, CCC workers cleared dead wood from burned areas and children to visit and enjoy America’s most scenic and in the park and removed “stumps from within sight of historic spots.”35 In fact, according to Fechner, the NPS park roads.”29 Called “fire presuppression” work, this determined in 1935 that “through Emergency Conserva-

112 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” tion Work, the development of the Nation’s recreational uniformly nor decoratively. “The object is not at all to areas has been advanced farther than would have been make the camp look pretty,” wrote Meinecke. “When possible in 10 to 20 years under the old order.”36 people go camping they want nature as unspoiled as possible,” he reminded park officials. “The object of improving a camp ground is certainly not to embellish Reconstructing the Campgrounds it, but to introduce just that degree of order which is necessary to make a camp ground permanent, safe and Throughout the 1930s, most of the work on camp- pleasant, and no more.”41 Meinecke also advocated “a ground reconstruction in the park was done by the ECW. system of camp rotation” whereby “endangered” camps Reconstruction work was necessary because of the exten- were “temporarily closed” in order to sufficiently recover sive pressure put on Yellowstone’s campgrounds during “either naturally or by artificial means.”42 the 1920s—in 1929 alone, 166,500 visitors used them.37 Johnston’s study found that many of the park’s Park administrators agreed in 1930 to a comprehensive eight major campgrounds and “numerous minor or study of the state of existing campgrounds, including undeveloped camp grounds” had suffered due to the recommendations for change. This study, completed in constant pressure of repetitive camping and the fact 1933 by Fred Johnston, assistant chief ranger in charge that campers were allowed to select their own camping of forestry in the park, agreed with many of the findings spots. He referred to the situation as “grave” and called of Dr. Emilio P. Meinecke, principal pathologist of the for “drastic steps toward camp ground regulation.”43 He U.S. Department of Agriculture, who advocated a system recommended closing some portions of campgrounds whereby campground sites were chosen according to “for the purpose of artificial restoration,” and called for their suitability to withstand use and their attractiveness an end to the practice whereby campers freely selected for visitors. Thus, according to Meinecke’s principles of their own sites.44 He urged park administrators to begin campground protection, regulation, and reconstruction, the process of campground regulation at Mammoth changes in the park’s campgrounds were infused with a first, because that area had received the most abuse. scientific approach to camp reconstruction, regulation, Mammoth’s campground was so far gone, he argued, and planning. Campsites were to be constructed in that it should be used for only as long as it would take to such a way that campers’ use of the land was regulated prepare a new area for future use as a campground.45 The without their sense of pioneer spirit being diminished. Old Faithful and Fishing Bridge campgrounds should Restrictions on driving, parking, and building fires were be next on the list, he opined, while others should be necessary, Meinecke argued, but should be “drawn so inspected regularly. His recommendations for these ar- unobtrusively that [the camper] hardly recognizes them eas followed Meinecke’s principles: extensive regulation as such.” “The art of distributing such heavy obstacles of traffic (one-way with spurs for parking), barriers to where nature has not provided them lies in the automatic enforce traffic patterns and parking, and fixed table and and immediate conveyance of the instruction to the stove arrangements.46 [camper] and in avoiding at the same time the impres- Responses to Johnston’s report were mixed. Act- sion of artificiality,” he wrote in his “Camp Planning ing Superintendent Guy D. Edwards claimed that most and Camp Reconstruction.”38 of Johnston’s recommendations—for example, placing Meinecke’s guidelines for campgrounds—designed obstacles and closing part of certain campgrounds for to achieve “protection and permanence” while encroach- restoration—were already planned but were not yet ing “as little as possible upon that legitimate degree of implemented due to a lack of funding. He also disagreed personal liberty which the camper has a right to enjoy” that the Mammoth Campground should be moved, —fit neatly with the NPS’s landscape architectural em- arguing in favor of restoring the current campground.47 phasis on rusticity and unobtrusiveness.39 In order of Concerns regarding abuse of campgrounds were certainly importance, these regulations consisted of one-way roads not resolved with this study. In fact, the issue of how to through campgrounds, “the fixation of the [camper’s] improve and regulate the camping experience in Yellow- car in its parking spur,” and the fixation of the fireplace stone remained open throughout the decade. In the sum- and table.40 The obstacles used to direct traffic, keep mer of 1934, for example, park officials debated which automobiles within their respective parking spots, and style of fireplaces to construct at campgrounds.48 delineate individual campsites were to be placed neither The Meinecke system of campground planning

Refuge in Rusticity 113 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #123285 and restoration did become the blueprint for Yellow- stone, however. In 1934, Meinecke himself spent several days in Yellowstone discussing campground problems with park rangers. George F. Baggley, chief ranger and, at the time, acting superintendent, noted that Meinecke’s visit had been helpful for rangers and asked that addi- tional copies—enough for each permanent ranger—of Meinecke’s two campground bulletins be sent to the park.49 In 1935, Superintendent Toll told NPS Director Arno Cammerer (who had replaced Albright in 1933) that the park “planned to develop [the] larger camp grounds along the lines suggested by Dr. Meinecke.”50 One campground issue on which park officials couldn’t look to Meinecke for guidance was the question of how to deal with permanent campers—those who set Mammoth Campground. 1939. up camp for an entire season and surrounded themselves with ramshackle structures and other debris. Campers had been establishing themselves at sites in this way for although the park could not deny entrance to people years, and park officials were growing weary of the mess. pulling the trailers, it could enact some restrictions with In May 1935, resident landscape architect Frank Mattson regard to safety, load, and even “objectionable features reported to Vint that “permanent campers” were becom- such as gaudy colors, sign boards and advertising.”54 In ing “a greater problem each year.” The “type of structures 1938, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes authorized they throw up are a disgrace to any campground,” he the sale of electricity to trailer tourists by means of coin- wrote. He wanted the NPS to establish regulations or operated machines.55 a code “by which the standard of camp construction That year, Johnston again presented a report on [could] be controlled.”51 the condition of campgrounds in the park. He argued As might be expected, factions of the public did for a greater ranger presence in the campgrounds, so not respond favorably to the NPS’s attempts to limit and that campers would “become better acquainted with the regulate their camping experiences. Several complained Service ideals and objectives and [that] protection ideas that prohibiting campers from finding their own sites [could] be more easily put across.” He also suggested limited their freedom. “Considering the large amount that foresters and landscape architects be involved with of space available,” read one petition to park officials, the planning of new campgrounds and improvements “we feel that the reproduction of urban crowding is of older ones.56 both unnecessary and contrary to national park ide- While not all campground issues were resolved in als.” The authors of this petition also did not like “the the 1930s, much progress was made on the enlargement impression that the so-called seasonal camper is not and beautification of most sites. None of this would have entirely welcome,” and complained that “[r]estrictions happened without the CCC. But while very involved and regulations are becoming more numerous and ir- with restoring campgrounds and constructing small, ritating.”52 By 1937, the NPS had instituted a thirty-day relatively out-of-the-way structures, CCC workers did limit on camping in the same spot, and the complaints little in the way of constructing major projects, especially kept coming.53 Park officials stuck to the thirty-day limit in the early years of the ECW. As Tweed put it, “The skills but remained lenient of campers who were determined required in rustic construction were thought to be too to choose their own site as long as it was not visible from complex for efficient execution by young and generally the roadways. unskilled enrollees.” Another problem was “an admin- “Auto camp trailers” posed another vexing prob- istrative dictum that structures erected by the E.C.W. in lem. These larger vehicles required more space for camp- the national parks could not cost more than $1,500.”57 ing, plus more space for maneuvering. When Director There was a branch of the Roosevelt administration, Cammerer asked the parks for suggestions regarding however, that did get involved with bigger projects: ways to deal with the problem, Mattson responded that the Public Works Administration. The PWA awarded

114 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” grants to various federal agencies for constructing “roads, Each park needed a plan “that viewed the park holisti- water and sewer systems, buildings, and other physical cally in terms of geography, visitation, and landscape improvements.”58 In this way, PWA building allotments protection, all in relation to the service’s many develop- were used on numerous NPS projects in Yellowstone. ing programs: fire control, interpretation and natural history, and engineering.”63 Such a transition to “master planning” was orchestrated under Vint’s leadership, and Landscape Architecture and the by 1929 these so-called “park development plans” were Development of a Master Plan mandatory. Park development plans were described in this way: Despite the shortage of available cash, the 1930s witnessed an expansion of Yellowstone’s built environ- Such a plan will give the general picture of the ment. All construction during this period remained park showing the circulation system (roads and under the purview of the Landscape Division. Thomas trails), the communication system (telephone Vint, chief landscape architect, chose Kenneth C. Mc- and telegraph), Wilderness areas, and Developed Carter, a hydraulic engineer from Grand Canyon Na- areas. More detailed plans of developed areas tional Park, as assistant landscape architect for District (villages, tourist centers, etc.) will be required Six (which included Yellowstone), and Frank E. Mattson to properly portray these special features. These as McCarter’s assistant, or junior landscape architect.59 plans being general guides will naturally be McCarter, who resided in Yellowstone during the con- constantly in a state of development and should struction season and was thus considered the park’s be brought up to date and made a matter of resident landscape architect, accepted the position with record annually. Their success depends upon the the Landscape Division in 1930.60 proper collaboration of study and effect on the Vint’s division changed dramatically over the de- part of the Park Superintendent, the Landscape cade. First, in 1933, the division was renamed the Branch Architect, the Chief Engineer, and the Sanitary of Plans and Design, and it was charged with producing Engineer. The resulting plan will not be the work building designs and plans for all park structures. Second, of any one but will include the work of all. Since Vint’s staff grew exponentially between 1933 and 1937, Park Development is primarily a Landscape as the branch’s scope of activity increased. Records from development, these plans will be coordinated by this period indicate that there were numerous landscape the Landscape Division.64 architects working in the park. One ramification of this growth was that after 1933, Vint was less involved NPS Director Albright first officially referred to with his associates in the field, and thus had less control these development plans as “master plans” in 1932, over their projects and designs. Another result was that during a presentation before a meeting of agency of- Vint’s office manager, William Carnes, born and raised ficials in Hot Springs, Arkansas.65 Coming as it did in in Montana, and with a degree in landscape architecture the middle of the Depression and just after passage of from University of California at Berkeley, became the the Employment Stabilization Act (1931), which asked person in charge of the Western Division of the Branch “government bureaus to prepare six-year plans for needed of Plans and Design when Vint moved, in late 1934, to construction,” the NPS’s efforts to revitalize its “planning Washington, D.C., to establish a headquarters for the initiative” were timely.66 By the end of the year, master branch.61 plans were completed for all the parks, including Yellow- One of the first projects landscape architects stone. They consisted of a “park development outline, worked on during the early years of the decade was a a general plan, and a six-year program,” the details for master plan for the park. Official planning had been a which were provided by park superintendents who had part of NPS policy since 1925, when superintendents outlined the park’s existing “areas”—including specific were encouraged to draw up five-year plans, with the and characteristic “components”—as well as a wish list help of landscape architects Hull and Vint. These plans of “what they needed to develop an area properly over outlined “the expansion and improvement of developed several years assuming funds were available.”67 Vint ex- areas of the parks.”62 It soon became clear, however, that plained the function of a park’s master plan by comparing the scope of a five-year plan was too limited in its vision. it to a city or regional plan: “Its use is to steer the course

Refuge in Rusticity 115 of how the land within its jurisdiction is to be used. became part of the park’s first master plan.73 Yellowstone’s Nothing is built directly from it. Each project, whether master plan of 1933 was a beautiful document consist- it be a road, a building, or a campground, must have its ing of numerous large sheets of paper (3' × 4') with construction plan approved. In the course of approval it large-scale colored-pencil and pastel drawings of maps is checked as to whether it conforms with and is not in of developed and special areas, park roads, trails, and conflict with the Master Plan.”68 The Landscape Divi- fire control facilities, and large plans of each developed sion, under Vint’s direction, prepared the plans, which area and proposed facility.74 The sheets depicting the “took the form of a series of large color drawings and an proposed developments were signed in 1934 by Vint accompanying narrative, the development outline.”69 Be- or his assistant, Thomas E. Carpenter, a graduate of sides providing basically a list of “existing facilities” and Harvard’s landscape school and former employee of the “proposed facilities,” each plan broke the park landscape Olmsted firm.75 into distinct areas or land-use categories: “developed While many of the master plan’s proposed devel- areas,” “research areas” (areas where human activity and opments were not implemented due to a lack of funds access were restricted as “areas where scientists could and changing interpretations and priorities, the plan did find ‘things in a normal, natural condition’”), “sacred establish and record the NPS’s attitude toward land-use areas” (areas of limited size “around major attractions categorization in 1933. It is especially interesting to [. . .] that precluded any construction”), and “wilderness note the changes planned for developed areas. From areas” —defined by Albright and Vint simply as “the rest the proposed changes, it is clear that many of the park’s of the park.”70 existing improvements—some of its roads and older According to a memorandum Superintendent buildings—were considered obtrusive and obsolete.76 Toll sent to Albright in 1932, Yellowstone’s first master The master plan offered a clear picture of how the NPS plan should include five “research areas”: Electric Peak, planned to reorganize developed areas in ways that Petrified Tree, Fossil Forest, Mirror Plateau, and Bechler would harmonize with the natural features of their sur- River. According to Toll, each of these areas “contain[ed] roundings. some particular type of flora or fauna or [had] some par- One area to receive attention in the 1933 master ticular geological history not common to the surround- plan was Old Faithful. The plan called for a new utility ing country.” “Sacred areas” in the park were numerous: site as part of the government area of the development. Mammoth Hot Springs, Norris Geyser Basin, National This utility site would include such buildings as a mess Park Mountain, Lower and Midway Geyser Basin, Old house, laborers’ bunkhouse, and barn (constructed in Faithful, Shoshone Lake, West Thumb, Heart Lake, 1931). The government area would include a ranger dor- Grand Canyon, and Tower Fall. No development that mitory, a married ranger dormitory (partially complete would “in any way deface the formations or detract from in 1932), and a ranger naturalist’s residence (remodeled the scenic value” was to be allowed.71 from an old mess house in 1932).77 The plan also called “Wilderness areas” set aside in 1932 included for a new bear-feeding ground. the Upper Yellowstone River, the Lamar River–Mirror The master plan also addressed Mammoth Hot Plateau, and Cutoff Peak. Of these, Toll wrote: “These Springs. A closer look at the planning process for this are great areas in the more remote sections of the park area provides a glimpse into the competing interests at which are to be forever maintained in their present state work in planning park administrative structures in the of improvement and development and which will be 1930s. Previous plans to modify the Mammoth area had accessible only by trail. . . . These areas are to be kept culminated in 1928, in the efforts of Vint and Ferruccio in their present state as near as it is possible to do so.” Vitale (of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts) to locate Recognizing the tremendous pressure motorized tour- the appropriate venue for the new museum planned for ists put on the parks and the need to keep some land the area. This search for the perfect museum site was untrammeled for future generations, Toll asserted, “The transformed in 1930 into a much larger project when National Park Service realizes its responsibility to future Vint invited landscape architect Gilmore D. Clarke, of generations and has taken these steps to insure great the Westchester County Park Commission in New York, wilderness areas for coming generations.”72 considered the “nation’s leading authority of parkways,” Except for three of the five research areas and to spend ten days in Yellowstone devising a general plan the West Thumb sacred area, these recommendations for development in the Mammoth area. The general

116 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” plan would correct what many perceived as, and what chief engineer, in January 1930. Stinson’s reasoning McClelland has called, a “serious problem in park plan- was that this new route offered “the opportunity . . . ning.” According to McClelland, the “village” at Mam- of bringing traffic into Mammoth before making junc- moth “was marked by a discordant array of structures tion with another entrance road and of connecting with and buildings and a system of congested roads which Mammoth at the logical geographic location, thereby contradicted the naturalistic principles that the national affording the unacquainted tourist an exit from Mam- park designers sought to uphold.”78 moth in the direction he desires to go.”82 This part of the Actually, the Mammoth area was not so much the plan, implemented by the end of the decade, included a product of poor planning as it was the product of little median-divided entrance to Mammoth from Gardiner planning. Clarke himself referred to his reorganization that would separate the government area from the park plan as “a basis for the better development of an area operators’ buildings. that has grown ‘like Topsy,’ and which is much in need Other parts of the proposal met with limited suc- of a new plan.” The plan—drawn up after intensive cess. While two new buildings were added to the area as field work in the park, numerous conferences with Toll, per the plan, most of the older buildings—both govern- Herbert Maier, Vint, and McCarter, and Clarke’s as- ment- and concessioner-owned—remained, and remain sistant, landscape architect Allyn R. Jennings—rested to this day, forming the central part of park headquarters on the premise that the “Mammoth Hot Springs and (today’s Fort Yellowstone National Historic Landmark) the formations are the most remarkable in the world.” and the tourist facilities of Mammoth Hot Springs. “Consequently,” Clarke wrote, “the setting should be The story of the plan’s implementation success—or unencumbered by artificial works of man.”79 failure—was familiar: too little funding and too much The plan indicated which of the area’s numerous disagreement between parties. buildings and roads were to be removed and where Disagreements started right after copies of the plan those proposed as new construction were to be built.80 were disseminated to Toll, Albright, McCarter, Vint, and McClelland wrote that the plan a host of interested parties ranging from concessioners to other government officials (the director of the U.S. called for the removal of most of the former army Weather Bureau, for example).83 McCarter explained buildings and the hotel and its related buildings the “primary assumption” of the plan to John Nolen, but retained recently built park buildings such a professor of landscape architecture at Harvard with as the superintendent’s residence, a barn, and a extensive experience in state park planning. “Mam- ranger’s residence. The entire area was redesigned, moth itself should be the junction of the three roads changing the circulation system to one of curv- [from Gardiner, Norris, and Tower] in order that the ing streets around an open elliptical lawn on the hot springs formation will not be bypassed with traffic site of the old hotel. The new concessionaire’s in any direction,” he wrote.84 The premise upon which development was situated to the east in a radiat- the plan was devised was that the natural setting of the ing pattern, and the park administration area, area should not be dwarfed or “encumbered by artificial residential area, and utility complex were located works of men.” to the south in several tiers along curving roads. While most could agree that the Mammoth area A road with diagonal parking and a median should not be bypassed, views differed widely on how of several planted islands joined the park and to improve the area while keeping natural features concessionaire’s business areas.81 as its focus. The discussion revolved around whether government or tourist facilities were more important at These recommendations found their way into the mas- Mammoth Hot Springs, and how much, and for what ter plan for 1933, and appeared in subdued color as a reason, development should occur. Concessioners were reminder of a particular vision of the Mammoth area. predictably unhappy with the recommendation that A major part of Clarke’s proposal advocated their buildings be razed and that they be required to live changing the “approach road to the park from the in quarters attached to their places of business. Vernon north entrance at Gardiner.” He promoted Route C Goodwin and William Morse Nichols of the Yellowstone as proposed in “Report of Reconnaissance Survey of Park Lodge and Camps Company complained about the Mammoth Entrance Roads,” written by A. C. Stinson, proposed removal of concessioners’ buildings while the

Refuge in Rusticity 117 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #32687 concessions), it would merely give people a “view of some bare hills.” It all came down to money, he felt. Was removing the buildings worth the cost, and “if it should warrant such expenditure, who would furnish the money?” he asked.88 George Whittaker, owner of the Yellowstone Park Stores, also did “not favor a change [in the buildings] unless it would be to remove the government buildings and build the hotel where the bachelor quarters and the front row of buildings are and have it face the terraces; then put the stores and gas station where the old hospi- 89 Auto caravan, Mammoth Hot Springs. 1932. tal now stands.” Anna K. Pryor, manager of The Park Curio Shop, called the plan “excellent,” but she noted that implementing it would mean that the government government buildings were allowed to stay. “[I]t would would need to compensate concessioners for the money strike an unbiased observer,” wrote Goodwin to Toll in they had invested in their operations. In the case of the September 1930, “that Mr. Clarke has been influenced, Curio Shop, she wrote, the amount due would have perhaps unconsciously, by the fact that the government been about $28,000. is his client.” He also complained about Clarke’s proposal Pryor also complained that concessioners should for the location of the hotel, from which guests’ rooms not have to live in or over their places of business. “In- would no longer look out onto the Mammoth Terraces. asmuch, as concessioners serve the public the same as “I can express only my personal preference,” he wrote, government employees,” she wrote, “they are entitled “but I would more thoroughly enjoy a leisurely view of to a site for a comfortable home.”90 J. E. Haynes, who this beautiful sight from a comfortable chair on the porch with his wife had lived for 18 summers above their shop, of the hotel or lodge than to catch a fleeting glimpse from also objected to the idea of concessioners living on site. a motor bus or the back of a horse.”85 “I feel that some of us must have separate residences for Nichols went further in his objection. It was the the same reasons that you [Superintendent Toll] have a hotel and other tourist facilities and not the administra- separate residence,” he argued.91 tion buildings that belonged at Mammoth, he wrote. This issue of where to house concessioners was “The reason for the hotel, stores or shops, is to serve the not unique to the Mammoth redesign plan. Also in public desiring to view the Terraces and to stop over night 1930, Vernon Goodwin requested permission to use a and be taken care of. With the exception of Information building at Willow Park by the Obsidian Creek Bridge Bureau, Museum and Post Office to equally serve the for his residence. While McCarter had “no objection to public at this point,” he fumed, “there is no reason why its use for such a purpose on a short term lease,” he was the government buildings should not be near Gardiner. concerned that “it might be a dangerous precedent in The Park could certainly be as well administered from the matter of scattering operators’ residences all over the Gardiner as from Mammoth and with virgin ground at park.” “If the operators object so strenuously to living Gardiner any kind of a landscaping scheme could be quarters attached to their places of business to such an laid out and built.”86 Furthermore, Nichols countered extent that they are willing to be removed several miles,” Clarke’s plan to have traffic enter the Mammoth area to he reasoned, “it might be as well to require them to the north of the administration area. This, at best, would reside at Gardiner in relation to the Mammoth area in give tourists a “sideling [sic] view of the Terraces.” “Why lieu of giving them rent-free government space within not bring the road to a point opposite the center of the the park.”92 area through the present government buildings and make Vint was bothered enough by this issue of conces- it a real approach to the Terraces?” he asked.87 Nichols sioner housing that he wrote to Director Albright in complained that implementing the plan would leave September 1930 asking for clarification regarding NPS “the ugly government buildings” in place to “encumber policy on the location of operators’ residences. The plan the landscape,” and, after removal of all the buildings for revamping Mammoth “should be made to fit Park along the northwest side of the Mammoth area (the policy,” he wrote. Vint liked Clarke’s proposal (so much,

118 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” apparently, that in 1931, he sent McCarter for “two park landscape designers had chosen a new location months of winter study” with Clarke), and argued for its for the proposed museum: it would be combined with implementation servicewide.93 His concern was that “[a]s the administration building and be situated, again to a rule the property occupied by such company officials accommodate traffic patterns, adjacent to the post is ‘sacred area’ to the n’th degree.” He had, for example, office.101 Other changes in the 1939 master plans in- noted instances “where residence sites for officers in cluded alternative entrance/checking station layouts for operating companies [had] given the Park Service dif- the North and West entrances, a new proposal for the ficulties,” and he was worried the NPS would be setting Bridge Bay development, and a new village at Canyon. itself up for trouble if it did not regulate concessioner According to the master plan, the entrance at Gardiner housing.94 However, Clarke’s solution was one of many was to be modified extensively. While the main entrance parts of the plan not implemented. for visitors arriving by train would remain the arch, a Museum specialist Hermon C. Bumpus appreci- second entrance for motorists (never built) would give ated Clarke’s plan but feared that the proposal would not direct access into the park from Gardiner’s Yellowstone move forward. “[Clarke] has evidently approached the River bridge. The checking station (rebuilt in 1939 after subject with an open mind,” he wrote, and he agreed that extensive fire damage) would be razed and another built the “extraordinary natural features” of the Mammoth essentially where the entrance station is today.102 area should control recommendations for change in the The Bridge Bay proposal was intended to consoli- area. But he also felt that Clarke was, as he put it, “opti- date all boating operations at one point, a location con- mistic” for thinking that there would “be any sweeping sidered “most desirable” because the bay was protected destruction of buildings that are privately owned.”95 from storms. The proposal included a concessions area As it was, there was little destruction of operators’ with a building devoted to “various retail operations,” or government buildings in the Mammoth area. While and a campground and cabin area. While some officials only a small part of Clarke’s design made it off the page, it felt the proposed development was “a natural setup for a was not for lack of approval or because operators’ wishes developed area,” others, authors of the 1939 master plan were considered paramount.96 The plan was indeed ap- acknowledged, “oppose[d] the development of another proved with only one minor change and, after all the commercial area.” This opposition was “well-founded,” fuss, park operators’ objections were determined to “carry wrote authors of the master plan, considering “the poli- little weight.” In fact, expectations for completion of the cies of the Service.” Furthermore, they conceded, it was plan were firm—but they were considered long-term. As “very difficult to limit the size of any development.” Vint explained it, park officials considered the plan as “[T]he developments within the Park cannot expand “intended to show what to do when any particular unit indefinitely without serious damage,” they wrote. But is rebuilt,” “not in order to reconstruct.”97 Toll himself, in at that point, the authors conceded, the Bridge Bay March 1931, called the plan “a satisfactory plan toward development plan was merely a proposal that would which to work,” and acknowledged that it would “of “require further field study and consultation with the course, be many years before some of the major items of Park Operators.”103 the plan [were] constructed.”98 The plan’s prospects for The new village proposed for Canyon would re- being used as a blueprint for development—or rebuild- turn the Upper and Lower Falls areas to more natural ing—remained rather bright throughout the decade. conditions, protect the Grand Canyon area from further The minor change made to the Mammoth plan in 1931 encroachment, and allow more tourists access to the involved shifting the museum’s location to the “planted area. For decades, the authors wrote, the original con- area in front of the residential row,” a location favored gressional act setting Yellowstone aside and prohibiting by Bumpus and Albright. They felt that the museum’s construction of facilities within “one-eighth mile” of location should be near the road to and from Tower Fall, a park treasure had been violated “to the detriment of as it had been determined that more visitors entered the the area and to the exclusion of thousands of tourists Mammoth area on that road than any other.99 enjoying the area to the greatest possible degree.” The Clarke’s slightly modified ideas for Mammoth construction of a new village would “try to correct these guided the 1939 master plan as well. The 1939 plan mistakes” and would be justified aesthetically and eco- included revisions that, as authors wrote, “more closely nomically, as well as on conservation principles. Among coincided with present circumstances.”100 By 1939, the many alterations proposed was the building of a

Refuge in Rusticity 119 new ranger station “near [the] proposed retail area with design and rustic architecture,” filled with “examples to possible museum wing and general contact station.”104 foster imaginative harmonious solutions adapted to the Many of these changes were finally implemented after needs and character of each situation.”111 World War II as part of the park’s Mission 66 program Good authored the text, but the ideas developed (see chapter 7). in the volumes represented the thoughts of a committee of architects—an editorial board that included, among others, Vint and architect Herbert Maier. While the Changes in the Park’s Built architectural designs endorsed by Maier, Good, Vint, Environment and other architects of the period were not of one style, they did exhibit general tendencies: such designs tried While the Depression interfered with the imple- either to “blend into” or celebrate their surroundings mentation of much of the master plan, quite a bit of by incorporating native materials; they emphasized the construction occurred during the period. The design of principle of horizontality, were to be made of native most of this construction bore the mark of the NPS’s materials with “character,” and were built according to love affair with rusticity and was part and parcel of Vint a scale appropriate to surrounding features. Horizontal and his associates’ Branch of Plans and Design. Vint structures were “less conspicuous and more readily sub- was in charge of enforcing this design style. According ordinated to their settings,” Maier and Good believed, to Tweed, Vint himself trained his associates in the art and reasonable “overscaling” of the structural elements of this “non-intrusive or ‘rustic’ design.” This burden of rustic construction to the “surrounding large trees and fell on Vint, Tweed wrote, as “[e]ven the best landscape rough terrain” was appropriate in forested and moun- schools of the time included little in their curricula that tainous regions. They eschewed straight, rigid lines “in prepared a student for National Park work.”105 favor of properly irregular, wavering, ‘freehand’ lines,” For several years, Vint and the Landscape Division and advocated doubling roof shingles every fifth course had been designing structures that looked as if they “‘be- to soften the effect and create a more primitive image. longed’ in the often awesome natural surroundings” of Furthermore, wherever possible, they argued, designs the park.106 This trend continued throughout the 1930s, should incorporate inspiration from pioneering or primi- reaching its peak before the decade ended. According to tive structures of the area. But log structures made from Laura Soulliere Harrison, author of Architecture in the unpeeled logs had only “transitory charm,” Good wrote. Parks, National Historic Landmark Theme Study, Vint “It is in the best interests of the life of park structures,” and his cohorts were “designers and onsite construction he continued, “as well as in avoidance of a long period supervisors [who] carefully studied the natural materials of litter from loosening bark, and of unsightliness during in the surrounding landscape—the color, scale, massing, the process, that there has come about general agree- and texture—and incorporated what they could into ment that the bark should be entirely sacrificed at the their designs.”107 They were “willing to seek out those outset.”112 design elements in their work which made the build- Good somewhat reluctantly referred to the above ings necessary for park development as unobtrusive and style as “rustic,” a term already in place to describe the harmonious as possible in their park settings.”108 structures built in forested parks but one that, he felt, By 1935, this “harmonious” design style was so was “misused and inaccurate.” While he hoped a better well-developed and so much in demand throughout word would gain currency, he also defined the term for the NPS that Ohio architect Albert H. Good published posterity: “a style which, through the use of avoidance a catalogue, Park and Recreation Structures, intended to of severely straight lines and over-sophistication, gives serve “as a training tool for new architects and landscape the feeling of having been executed by pioneer craftsmen architects designing developments in parks.” This single with limited hand tools. It thus achieves sympathy with volume was followed in 1938 by Good’s three-volume set, natural surroundings and with the past.”113 One of the Park Structures and Facilities.109 Good’s volumes “helped leading architects to employ this style was Herbert Maier, popularize and standardize compelling imagery for ‘ap- architect of several trailside museums in the park. propriate’ park architecture.”110 McClelland referred to Maier’s career with the NPS was long and produc- Good’s volumes as a “comprehensive index of national tive, his influence growing as his position changed from park principles and practices for naturalistic landscape architect of museums to landscape architect and park

120 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #44364

Hermon Bumpus, Kenneth Chorley, and Herbert Maier. 1930. planner. His philosophy of park architecture centered cabins. Evenly spaced and strategically located through- on the belief that the “concept of ‘improvement’ was an out the park, these little structures were intended to en- anomaly in park development.” To minimize a structure’s hance the protective mission of Yellowstone and were so impact on its surroundings, he argued for “screening, important that park managers ordered them constructed, the use of indigenous and native materials, adaptation replaced, and maintained as needed. Superintendent Toll of indigenous or frontier methods of construction, con- had, in fact, a “policy” of constructing two cabins a year struction of buildings with low silhouettes and horizontal because, by 1930, many of the cabins built in the military lines, avoidance of right angles and straight lines, and era were “past the stage of repairing.”118 Cracks in the elimination of the lines of demarcation between nature walls and floors as well as decayed and settled founda- and built structures.”114 Perhaps his greatest contribu- tion logs were common problems. “They are hardly fit tion to park design, according to McClelland, was “his for human habitation during the winter months,” Toll mastery of rockwork, assimilating both the landscape wrote in an outline of planned construction work, “but gardener’s emphasis on naturalism and the architect’s [they] are strategically located for winter patrols and vision of the construction potential of this material.”115 winter studies of the geyser basins and are necessary to As Carr wrote, “Maier’s park architecture . . . could our work.”119 literally improve the view; it embodied the intellectual Most of the cabins built during this decade adhered keys—scientific research and interpretation—that could to a design the NPS adopted as part of its effort to stan- open the experience of places to new dimensions of ap- dardize plans for frequently built structures. Although preciation.”116 Acting Superintendent Leroy Hill told Vint in 1927 that By the early 1930s, Yellowstone’s rustic architec- Yellowstone’s chief ranger, Samuel T. Woodring, did not ture had become such a trademark that planners of state want to submit or work from design plans for snowshoe parks from around the nation often called on the park’s cabins that were “to be built in remote locations and superintendents for advice on construction projects. Toll by unskilled labor,” Vint’s office had forged ahead and advised those interested in Yellowstone’s rustic designs created a standardized design plan for snowshoe cabins to direct their requests to the Landscape Division in San that would reflect the agency’s intention that building Francisco.117 These state officials were most often inter- designs be both functional and harmonious with the ested in design plans for the park’s snowshoe cabins. environment.120 In fact, much of the rustic construction built in In 1930, the Landscape Division gave park officials the park during the 1930s was in the form of snowshoe three cabin design plans to review. All three cabins were

Refuge in Rusticity 121 the same size (15' × 13') and shared a floor plan and log posts beneath the purlins in the open porch gable.” such features as an eight-foot deep front porch; a stone This solution to the problem of how to support the chimney; built-in closet, cupboard and sink; and a little extended porch roof was one of many plans with which food cellar accessible by a trap door in the cabin’s floor. the designers and builders had experimented over the The exterior designs, however, were different. The Type years. The cabin’s success in this arena apparently resulted 2 Standardized Snowshoe Cabin—a log building with a in its “method of supporting the extended purlins” be- four-light window on each sidewall, a porch roof carried ing adopted as a standard design feature in the NPS’s on log posts, and three purlins resting on log uprights and standardized plan for snowshoe cabins.126 a beam that spanned the log posts—was adopted by the Another anomaly, although less successful accord- park but modified immediately to reflect practicalities. A ing to Assistant Landscape Architect McCarter, was the sliding sash window was substituted in the back wall, the cabin’s appearance. Its oversized logs and “steeply pitched interior furnishings were eliminated, a puncheon floor roof” were “at odds with the National Park Service’s was chosen for the porches, and the stone chimney was philosophy that buildings be inconspicuous and readily replaced with a galvanized stove pipe.121 The last change subordinated to their setting.” McCarter criticized the likely disturbed the Landscape Division more than any cabin’s appearance as it was being built; in particular, he other, as it detracted considerably from the romantic did not like that the builders had used 14- and 16-inch notion of rusticity. The list of construction details sent logs when they ran out of 12-inch ones. He did, how- to the park upon adoption of the Type 2 plan, however, ever, approve of the steep pitch of the roof and even the involved enough rustic features, including several that galvanized roofing, as he put it, “to eliminate some of the park had incorporated in their cabins since the early the snow shoveling since the cabin [was] not visited very 1920s, to keep the landscape architects happy: “stone frequently during the winter and practically no tourists piers, battered log crowns, axe-cut log ends, and purlins ever reach[ed] that territory.”127 The galvanized roof extending beyond the roof edge.”122 was adopted as part of the standardized plan even if the In 1931, this standardized plan was again modi- practice of using such a steep pitch was discontinued. fied to meet the real-world needs of rangers using the The snowshoe cabins built in 1931—the Fern Lake cabins: “The stove was moved from the front to the rear and Upper Miller Creek buffalo herder’s cabins—are of the cabin and the cellar was moved from a rear corner the oldest extant examples of the Standard Snowshoe to near the front with the trap door opening just to the Cabin Drawing 3037. The cabin at Fern Lake was built, side of the entry door.” These changes allowed for a more according to Guy Edwards, “for the purpose of having practical placement of furniture. Also, the four-light sash a comfortable station where rangers and other parties window became a six-light sash. In addition, the rustic interested and assigned to game study work can make wood shingles, or shakes, were replaced with practical, their headquarters.”128 George Larkin, a contractor from snow-shedding, corrugated iron. This modified version Gardiner, Montana, submitted the low bid and was cho- of Type 2 standardized snowshoe cabin became the sen to construct the cabins at Fern Lake and Upper Miller standard plan—referred to as Standard Snowshoe Cabin Creek.129 The latter cabin was not intended for winter Drawing 3037—for cabins built in the park throughout use, as it was built to house the herder responsible for the 1930s.123 monitoring the bison that spent the summer on the high Before this standardized plan was put into effect, open range of the Lamar River and Miller Creek.130 however, one last snowshoe cabin was built with “distinc- When funding for NPS construction in fiscal year tive design characteristics” in the old style of the 1920s.124 1934 dried up, Toll used ECW funds to construct cabins, In the summer of 1930, a one-room cabin (22' × 20') was arguing that the cabins were necessary for protective pur- built at Miller Creek (variously referred to as the Calfee poses and that the park lacked resources to continue its Creek or the Lower Miller Creek Cabin). The logs used program of building two cabins per year.131 In October for the walls, measuring 12–18 inches at the butt and 1934, three standard snowshoe cabins were built under at the chisel-pointing of the gable’s log crowns (which NPS supervision: the Upper Lamar River Cabin (its were a continuation of the log walls from below), gave site now occupied by the Lamar Mountain Cabin) on this cabin “architectural significance.”125 According to a the Upper Lamar River at Saddle Mountain (moved to recent architectural assessment, the Miller Creek Cabin is Lamar Mountain in 1992); the Buffalo Plateau Cabin on “the oldest identified cabin in Yellowstone to use vertical the park’s north boundary; and the Cold Creek Cabin,

122 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #31591-8 their time in the park. The cabin at Clear Creek, built in 1938, replaced a cabin built earlier—sometime between 1913 and 1925—that collapsed under the weight of a heavy snowfall during the winter of 1937–1938. Public Works Administration employees constructed the Peale Island Cabin in 1940. Both cabins became part of the park’s array of snowshoe and backcountry cabins when they were transferred to the NPS in 1961. Both cabins were frame structures. The Clear Creek Cabin was a three-room, rectangular (22.5' × 15'), log-frame build- ing with a sleeping loft. The cabin at Peale Island was a Fern Lake Cabin. 1931. four-room, wood-frame building, rectangular in shape (21.5' × 23.5') with decorative front and rear bargeboards 135 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #31609 supported by false purlins. During this period, controversies concerning the color of structures’ exteriors, roofs, and walls were perceived as opportunities to encourage unobtrusive building practices. For example, in 1930, Assistant Su- perintendent Guy D. Edwards asked Superintendent Toll to contact Chief Landscape Architect Vint regarding the color scheme of park structures. As Edwards explained, “Almost everyone concerned, here, favors the green roof with the brown sides,” as opposed to the brown building/brown roof scheme dictated by the Landscape Architecture Division. Edwards also noted that all the Upper Miller Creek Cabin. 1933. buildings at Zion, Bryce Canyon, and Grand Canyon national parks had green roofs.136 When Superintendent Toll approved the new standard “Park Service Green” close to the spot of the military-era cabin that burned paint for use on automobiles, signs, and buildings that down in June 1934. The cabins on Buffalo Plateau and year, he noted to Vint that in the past, both the walls the Lamar River were constructed under contract by and roofs of many NPS buildings had been painted with George Larkin, who again submitted the low bid. They brown stain, creating an effect he called “not pleasing, were felt to be “of particular strategic importance in as the color scheme looks drab and without interest or protecting Yellowstone’s game animals from poachers.”132 character.” He much preferred a brown-stained building The Cold Creek Cabin replaced one built by the army with a green painted roof. In response, Vint explained that burned in June 1934. Superintendent Toll wanted to Toll that brown-stained roofs were preferred because to rebuild right away, because the cabin was critical as a the green faded more quickly. The intent, moreover, patrol point for rangers from the Lake and Soda Butte was for buildings to be two shades of brown. Thus, Vint districts in winter, and for a fireguard in summer.133 Also continued to recommend that the roofs of the Mammoth built in 1934 were a root cellar, barn, and outhouse (all Auto Campground buildings, for instance, be stained extant) at the site of the Lower Blacktail Deer Creek brown because that color would be less noticeable than Snowshoe Cabin.134 green when viewed from the terraces.137 Good and Maier In 1938 and 1940, two cabins were built in con- agreed with Vint: both discouraged the use of green. junction with the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries’ egg-collecting “Strangely enough,” Good wrote in his catalogues, “green projects: one at Clear Creek and one at Peale Island. Of is perhaps the hardest of all colors to handle, because it the several egg-collecting stations the bureau constructed is so difficult to get just the correct shade in a given set- around Yellowstone Lake, only these two cabins are still ting and because it almost invariably fades to a strangely extant. The cabins built at these sites were intended to different hue.”138 In short, green stood out, making a house the “egg harvesters” —or “spawntakers” —during structure conspicuous.

Refuge in Rusticity 123 Relative to roof construction, Vint preferred the the typical features of most rustic park architecture at use of 24" shingles or shakes, which, as he put it, tended the time: ventral saddle notches joining the walls at the “to get away from flimsyness [sic] in the ordinary roof.” corners and log ends with a “chopper-cut end finish.” He also favored Good’s and Maier’s recommendation Another rustic detail was that “the line of the log ends of doubling every fifth course to break up the “dull flat- [was] cut so that they flare[d] slightly at the base.” An ness” of the roof and using a pre-dipped shingle that he “intersecting gable roof [with] wood shingles” and ex- believed gave “a pleasing result by using two-third green posed purlins and rafters topped off the structures. and one-third grey, distributed at random.” Twenty-four- The Northeast Entrance checking station was also inch shingles, doubled on every fifth course, were used of rustic design, with three separate log saddle-notched for all park buildings built during this period except buildings sharing a “sweeping side-gable roof.” The those at Old Faithful Utility Area.139 central building, an office, was separated from the two Just as buildings were meant to blend with their smaller structures, which served as booths used to house surroundings, so, too, were the signs used in the park. park checking station attendants, by carports through The NPS erected “rustic signs” throughout the park and which cars passed on their way into and out of the park. complained when concessioners’ signs stood out too The gable of the office building was covered with vertical much.140 In 1934, landscape architect Frank Mattson tongue-and-groove siding, and boasted a routed National complained to Superintendent Toll about the increase Park Service sign under the roof’s peak.143 in use of white signs throughout the park. Mattson was George Larkin was contracted to construct new “under the impression,” as he put it, “that the back- ranger stations at the West (1932) and Northeast (1935) ground of these signs would be very much like the color entrances, as well as a checking station at the Northeast of the building they were on: generally a brown with the Entrance. The designs for all three buildings emanated lettering a contrasting color.” He argued against signs from the Branch of Plans and Design and combined a that drew attention to themselves and were intended to certain functionality with rusticity. In the summer of drum up business. “It is my understanding,” he wrote, 1940, the Snake River Ranger Station burned. It was “that these signs are for information and not for com- rebuilt, under the new NPS policy mandating frame- petative [sic] advertising as one would be impressed by constructed buildings instead of logs; in 1939, agency their present use.” He called for “some definite regulation officials had restricted the cutting of park trees for con- regarding signs and advertising.”141 Toll responded with a struction and decided to design all future buildings using “Memorandum to Operators” that outlined such regula- milled lumber.144 tions. He reminded concessioners that “[a]ll details of the Fire also destroyed other important buildings dur- sign[s] [erected on operators’ buildings] including size of ing this period. In March 1937, the Gardiner checking the sign and size and type of the lettering and the color station burned and was rebuilt to the original design. At of the lettering and background, should be approved [by that point, the station (quarters included) was located the resident landscape architect] in advance.” He wrote on the right side of the road just inside the park from that some signs used in the park were “appropriate and the North Entrance arch.145 In September of that year, harmonious while others [were] not.”142 the Thorofare Ranger Station was gutted by fire. A new Ranger stations built during this period were also floor, ceiling, and roof were built that fall, and all the unobtrusive and rustic. The log-bearing West Entrance furnishings were replaced.146 Ranger Station was built according to an “irregular plan” At least five primary fire lookout stations were built on a concrete foundation with “a battered stone veneer.” during the 1930s as part of the park’s efforts to protect Two smaller residential wings—the mirror image of each forests, structures, and wildlife from fire. Lookout sta- other—veered off a main rectangular block with its own tions at Mount Sheridan (1930) and Mount Holmes intersecting “large central wing.” The one-story, rectan- (1931) were built as one-room structures, the design gular, log ranger station at the Northeast Entrance had a of which followed “standard No. 3 plans,” with a stone concrete foundation covered with a rough native stone foundation, “a small basement for the storage of water, veneer with a partial basement, a low pitched front-gable a few tools, etc.,” and a “lightning arrester.”147 Lookout roof covered with cedar shingles, and doors of “tongue stations at Pelican Cone and Observation Peak were built and groove construction with long metal strap hinges on in 1937 using ECW labor.148 These bigger lookouts were the exterior.” The ranger stations’ rustic touches included one-story, one-room “houses” with windows on all sides.

124 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” The lookout house at Pelican Cone was started by the the general effect had been marred by the location of ECW workers but finished by the park carpenter “in detached comfort stations in the immediate vicinity.” order to finish it up in good order.”149 Toll concurred and suggested that in the future, each The lookout on Mount Washburn was discussed structure built by the NPS or by the Laura Spelman in 1938, and constructed in 1939. The principal point Rockefeller Memorial should include plans for a comfort of discussion was whether to let the public enter the station under its roof. He sent his recommendation to building.150 Because it was decided that the public would Herbert Maier, the designer of the Rockefeller museums be allowed access, “a more pretentious building was de- in the park.156 sired.” The plan included a building separated into two Assistant Landscape Architect McCarter wrote sections. One section consisted of a three-story tower back, insisting that attached comfort stations would not with separate floors for an observation room (third), work at areas of “considerable traffic congestion, and living quarters (second), and “a public comfort station especially where traffic requires large comfort stations.” of the chemical type” (first). The other section included He was also concerned that the kind of structures Nolen “a duplicate of the regular fire locating equipment and and Toll were suggesting would make “the museum an tools to be used for instructing the public in the science of addenda [sic] to a comfort station.” “In combining [the fire location, and also a small museum.”151 Construction comfort stations] with the museums being built here in of section one began in the summer of 1939, and was the park,” he responded, “it would seem to me that the handled by Associate Architect Earhart.152 The building buildings are too small to accommodate both units. If was “of reinforced concrete with a bush hammer finish the comfort station is of sufficient size, approximately on the outside.”153 our standard station, it would put it on a par with the Work on improving the comfort stations around museum itself and the signs should read ‘Comfort Sta- the park also continued apace in the 1930s. The Apolli- tion and Museum.’” McCarter advised not including naris Spring development, begun in 1925, was enhanced comfort stations in structures like the Fishing Bridge when a comfort station was added to the area in 1931, Museum, which was “comparatively small,” and where and in 1935, when fountains were built for tourists to “accommodations [were] conveniently supplied else- drink “the best mineral water, readily accessible, in the where.”157 park.” The 25' × 13.5' comfort station had walls of The acting head of the Division of Landscape reverse board and batten with “exterior log framing in Architecture, Thomas Carpenter, raised another com- vertical, diagonal and horizontal patterns.” In 1931, as fort station issue in 1931, when he disagreed with the part of its efforts to standardize plans for park buildings, location of a comfort station planned for the Mammoth park officials chose this comfort station at Apollinaris Automobile Campground. Recalling the disagreement Spring as the model or standard for comfort station between Superintendent Albright and Landscape Engi- construction throughout the park.154 Several comfort neer Hull over the placement of ranger stations at Can- stations were also built at West Thumb that year. The yon and Old Faithful years earlier, Carpenter wanted the stations were built from standard plan No. 3034; each comfort station in a less conspicuous location, but Acting of the one-story rectangular buildings had a concrete Superintendent Edwards disagreed. “[O]ur opinion,” he foundation wall and an exposed log frame faced on the wrote back, addressing his letter to Thomas Vint, “is that interior with board-on-board siding. The gable roof was if a desirable looking building is constructed at this place covered with large wooden shingles.155 there would be no objection. In other parks suitable log The location of comfort stations became an issue comfort stations are erected in different places with no at the beginning of the 1930s, when city planner John effort made to conceal them,” he reminded Vint and Nolen visited the park and subsequently recommended Carpenter, “the idea being that they should be out where that comfort stations “be made an essential part of all everyone can find them.”158 public buildings and included under the main roof” of The built environment of Yellowstone’s developed these buildings. Apparently he had found the situation areas changed considerably in the 1930s. As noted above, at Norris and other points unaesthetic. Toll wrote to changes at the Mammoth Hot Springs developed area Vint that Nolen “criticised in a friendly manner the were not as extensive as the master plan called for, but unfortunate appearance of a building to which much there were a few. While Mammoth did not receive the attention had been given to architecture, but in which new museum for which Clarke and others had planned,

Refuge in Rusticity 125 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #30601-4

Mammoth apartment house. 1936.

changes were made to the existing museum building in Construction on the new apartment house began 1933. All offices were relocated to the north end of the in 1935, and by March 1936, the first government building, and the portion under the offices was excavated building to be built at Mammoth since the army left and a stairway constructed leading to the newly relo- in 1918 was completed. William Gebhardt oversaw cated library. The old office and library were converted the construction process, as inspecting architect.162 The to an exhibit area for geology specimens, and the main “massive masonry bearing” building had an I-shaped basement was converted into storage and a workroom. footprint and “elaborate Tudor detailing” embellishing During 1933, the Yellowstone Library and Museum the simple concrete face, ornamenting the oriel windows, Association was created to assist with donations and and breaking up the “symmetrical fenestration pattern” developing the library and museum.159 on the top floor.163 Although none of these details can Clarke’s plan had included a new building for be considered rustic, the building’s design did fit in with employee housing. This part of his design bore fruit its eclectic, army-era surroundings. when plans were drawn up for new NPS housing be- The other two major buildings under construction hind the 1911 guardhouse and jail. Adequate employee in the “government” area of Mammoth Hot Springs that housing had been both a problem and a priority since year—the new Mammoth Post Office, which was part the park’s creation, and in 1933, Landscape Architect of Clarke’s plan, and a utility building—also tested the Vint suggested that a cottage group be built east of the rule of rustic design.164 Both were imposing concrete utility area at Mammoth. A short time later, however, structures that did harmonize with the existing army-era the discussion between Vint and the park turned toward structures. Gebhardt also oversaw construction of the the construction of a 20-unit apartment house, with Toll utility building, which proceeded much more slowly suggesting that the four residences on the lower row be than anticipated. While it was expected that the building removed upon completion of the apartment. Toll also would be completed by December 1936, it was not actu- tried to reassure Vint that the apartment did not take ally finished until May 1937. “While there was a great the place of a proposed new residential area they had deal of greif [sic] for the Park and the Inspecting Architect discussed earlier.160 Before construction began, Acting on this project,” resident landscape architect Sanford Superintendent Guy Edwards wrote to Acting Chief Hill wrote, “the final results turned out satisfactorily.”165 Landscape Architect Carnes, arguing that the building Construction on the post office was slowed by financial be made “as fireproof as possible, considering the limited problems, but was finally completed in October 1937.166 quantity of water for fire protection at Mammoth and the The building itself has been “cited as the only example lack of water pressure, which did not exceed fifty pounds. of the French Renaissance Moderne Style in Wyoming.” “With such a limited water supply,” he reminded Carnes, It is “a seven-bay, two-story, rectangular, concrete build- “a catastrophy [sic] might arise if the building is made ing on a raised basement,” with a stucco finish and slate only fire resistant.”161 shingles on its steeply pitched hipped roof.167

126 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #44323 Not part of Clarke’s plan for the area, but in the works nevertheless, the Lower Mammoth residence area, with its series of one-story frame houses, was also established between 1937 and 1939. These dwellings, built with CCC labor, were part of a host of residences built over time to house NPS employees and their families.168 The Lamar Buffalo Ranch area also experienced change in the 1930s. In 1938, the Soda Butte Snowshoe Cabin/Ranger Station, built in 1930, was relocated to the ranch to be used as the assistant buffalokeeper’s 169 residence. A bedroom/bathroom addition, accessible Fishing Bridge Museum under construction, ca. 1930. from both the outside and the kitchen, was added soon after relocation, creating an L-shaped plan.170 Plans were underway at the end of the decade to use the ranch as a believed that the $10,000 project “did not meet the park utility area for road maintenance as well as a site for bison standards in either construction or appearance.”174 management. Thus, Superintendent Rogers was “greatly Another area to undergo tremendous change was surprised” to learn, in 1939, that the NPS, as part of its Fishing Bridge. The museum planned for Fishing Bridge wildlife policy, intended to “eliminate the development in 1928 as part of the park’s trailside museum project at the Buffalo Ranch.” “New water systems and other was finally constructed in 1930, but not without con- improvements are being made with full approval of all troversy. The educational staff, notably Dr. Hermon C. branches,” Rogers complained in a memorandum to Bumpus of the American Association of Museums and Cammerer, “and as far as we know everyone has agreed assistant landscape architect Kenneth McCarter, favored that this is the place for a utility area.” Rogers suggested a location on the lakeshore near the auto camp, while that Cammerer in the future refer questions of “wildlife Superintendent Toll and Director Albright argued for policy as regards Yellowstone . . . to [his] office for an a site by the hatchery, or at the very least, on the loop opinion before they [were] given wide publicity.”171 road between the hatchery and the proposed Lake Junc- Thus, Cammerer’s plans for eliminating the ranch and tion.175 Toll and Albright felt that the lake location would restoring the “Lamar Valley to primitive conditions” were exclude visitors without their own means of transporta- abandoned in favor of using the site as a utility area (and tion—those staying at the Lake Hotel, for example—or much later, as an educational area).172 Around 1940, a visitors driving the loop road who were willing to stop snowplow garage (used more recently as a powerhouse only once, that stop being at the fish hatchery.176 Both and, in 2000, removed altogether from the site) and two Toll and Albright agreed, however, that the decision fire hose houses were built on the site.173 should be Bumpus’s—both, in short, were willing to Between 1933 and 1935, the Game Ranch (Ste- “accept his judgment,” and so the museum was built at phens Creek area) acquired a new residence/office, barn, Bumpus’s proposed location off the main road by the garage, and storage sheds. In 1934, a house was relocated lake.177 When the museum received fewer visitors than to the area and remodeled extensively to replace the other park museums in 1949, Superintendent Edmund existing “tumbled down log structure which provide[d] Rogers attributed the lower visitation to the museum’s shelter but scarcely anything more.” The “new” house, location off the main road.178 originally built in 1917 and owned at the time the NPS The building itself, the last of the four museums purchased it (1929) by Ernest A. and Sybil Rife, un- planned and designed by Herbert Maier, perfectly illus- derwent many changes. It received a new basement and trated the NPS’s rustic design concept. The one-story, concrete-wall foundation faced with “coursed, cut stone stone and wood-frame structure had an elongated rect- from the old Mammoth Stone quarry,” a new addition angular footprint of a central block with two unequally to replace the “crude” one already attached, wallpaper, sized wings. The structure’s “uncoursed rubblestone and changes to the doors and windows. Park landscape masonry foundation . . . extend[ed] to the window sills,” architect Frank Mattson was in charge of the remodel- and the frame section above was covered with “wood ing project but remained skeptical about its success: he shingles set in a wave pattern.” Wooden shakes covered

Refuge in Rusticity 127 the gable roofs, which had large log purlins and rafters museums,” he wrote. While he “appreciate[d] . . . that with exposed ends and log brackets supporting the these plans [for the steps] were not drawn up in your central building’s overhanging roof.179 The three rooms, office,” he asked that the NPS “take advantage of this devoted to “Bird Hall” (the central room), “Lake Geol- experience and not use any more native stone for the ogy,” and “Lake Biology” (the wings), were well-supplied treads in park buildings.”181 with natural light from multi-light doors and casement Maier also designed the naturalist’s residence windows. According to Albert H. Good’s description, the located adjacent to the east side of the museum and “nature museum” was “well-planned and well-lighted.” resembling the museum in many ways. The residence, It was, he wrote, “a successful example of the employ- also one story and of wood-frame construction, had a ment of principles important in the creating of buildings cement foundation “faced with large-diameter uncoursed suitable to natural areas—the value of the freehand line, rubblestones that slope outward at each exterior corner in the avoidance of underscale, and the pleasing quality of a naturalistic organic design.” Wooden shingles in a wave the furrowed and knotted log.”180 pattern covered the frame structure above the stone-faced The museum was completed and opened to the foundation, and, with every fifth course doubled, they public in 1931. In 1933, Superintendent Toll wrote to also covered the roofs—both the hip roof of what is prob- McCarter complaining about the native stone steps used ably the original section and the shed roof of what might to access the museums at Fishing Bridge and Norris. The be the addition. Two factors led architectural experts to irregular treads were particularly “unsatisfactory for the believe that the wing was an addition: its “unusual shed use of the considerable number of people that use these roof design and . . . minimal fenestration.”182 Additions were also made at the Norris and Lake YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #44390 areas. At Norris, two rustic buildings were constructed close to the museum in the first half of the decade: a one-story, log comfort station and a one-story, log bear- ing barn with a gable roof.183 At Lake, a rustic comfort station was built. This one-story, one-bay log frame building had walls enclosed with vertical “shiplap” siding and a gable roof with “exposed rafter ends and purlins under the eaves.”184 The ranger station/community room was also altered. Plans were drawn up in 1931, and a north wing was added at a later date to accommodate permanent residents.185 Herbert Maier was also involved with the con- Fishing Bridge Museum. 1930. struction of another mainstay of park architecture: the amphitheater. In fact, he elevated the amphitheater to

YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #44386 “an architectural form in its own right.”186 Yellowstone was not the first national park to build an amphitheater, however. Already in 1920, Charles Punchard, the NPS’s first landscape architect, had recommended use of the de- sign for outdoor amphitheaters in national parks, calling the design “attractive, unique, and comfortable,” and a simple one had been built in Yosemite in 1920. Further- more, well-known landscape architect Frank Waugh had published articles and even a treatise on amphitheaters, Outdoor Theaters: The Design, Construction, and Use of Open-Air Auditoriums (1917).187 Of the several amphitheaters built in the park during the 1930s, the earliest two were designed by Maier: one at the Old Faithful Museum and one at the Fishing Bridge Museum interior. 1930. museum at Fishing Bridge. Both were built with funds

128 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #123212

Old Faithful amphitheater. 1933. provided by the American Association of Museums, stone Lake; it had skulls and antlers attached to the and dedicated in the summer of 1932. Maier found and projection screen that were later removed.191 adapted prototypes of his outdoor theater design in the In 1934, the CCC built two more amphitheaters Greek Theater at the University of California–Berkeley around campfires: one at Mammoth for 200 people (1903), and in architect Myron Hunt’s design for Po- “on the hillside above the camping area,” and another, mona State College in California. His finished products smaller one for 75 persons near the Madison Museum were semicircular, rustic adaptations of the traditional “at a point from which National Park Mountain is vis- Greek theater: aisles and rows of log seating radiated ible.”192 By 1935, after another for 125 people was added out from a center stage into a hillside. According to to West Thumb, five amphitheaters were in use.193 In McClelland, “Maier’s semicircular designs with their log 1936, plans were made to build an outdoor theater at materials were better suited to the intimate woodland the Canyon Campground. These plans did not material- surroundings and use for evening lectures and slide shows ize, however, until September 1937, because the general than the massive stone and concrete prototypes.” Their plan for the Canyon area was being revised, which meant smaller scale and “naturalistic” style “befitt[ed] [their] that the naturalist program—or “campfire lecture,” as forested location.” Split logs formed the benches, and it was called—at Canyon was held in the community “scattered trees within the theater were left in position” room of the ranger station.194 With all ranger-naturalist to enhance the structure’s rusticity.188 programs moved out of any operator’s or concessioner’s Not all the details were equally successful at blend- building, such as lodges and hotels, the NPS could rest ing in and being unobtrusive, however. Good found the assured knowing, as Superintendent Toll put it, that “perching of the housing for the projector on log ‘piles’ visitors finally had a clear choice regarding the quality of . . . of interest,” and the placement of rocks along the their instruction in the park. “We believe this to be an path at the Old Faithful amphitheater so “unfortunate improvement,” he wrote in his annual report for 1935, . . . as to force their eventual removal, unless Nature “as the visitors now have a choice as to whether they will hastens to supply some ground cover to obliterate them attend the naturalist program around the campfire or a in considerable degree.”189 In the 1950s, as part of the ‘savage’ program in a lodge.”195 “improvements” of the Mission 66 project, the half-log Amphitheaters were just one result of the rela- seats were replaced with “typical” plank seats on metal tionship between landscape architecture and educa- legs.190 The Fishing Bridge amphitheater faced Yellow- tional programming, which bore fruit in the naturalistic

Refuge in Rusticity 129 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #41214 design and landscaping of numerous other elements of Yellowstone’s cultural environment. These included the system of nature trails, observation platforms, and roadside exhibits—alternatively called markers, kiosks, or nature shrines—integrated into the park’s landscape.196 Rustic outdoor settings were created for each of these elements of Yellowstone’s interpretive program. While other national parks were also busy with such interpre- tive developments, Yellowstone’s program, according to McClelland, “led the service in integrating these features into the design and operation of museums throughout Norris boardwalk. 1936. the park.” The landscapes thus created “drew heavily from the traditions of rustic architecture and naturalistic gardening.”197 or to the natural abode of a faunal or floral species,” he One example of how advances in landscape crafting wrote. Second, “[t]hey are designed to ‘answer questions.’ and engineering guided the construction of an educa- The interpretive material displayed may be in the nature tional project was the nature trail across Norris Geyser of specimens, photographs, charts, maps, and such other Basin. In the summer of 1936, landscape architects and information matter, supplemented by legends and de- park officials followed the 1933 master plan for the area tailed explanation. . . . They can make possible a broader and devised a circular, naturalistic footpath in keeping understanding of an area than endless tramping over the with McCarter’s 1929 recommendations for the trail at actual ground could give.” Third, and most importantly, Old Faithful. The three stages of construction at Norris shrines provided education on the visitor’s own terms. were “the installation of parallel rows of log curbing, the “Since guide and shrine devices are unattended,” Good building of a boardwalk of planks supported on two- noted, “they are that perfect guide service—the park by-fours, and a final surfacing with concrete and gravel naturalist or historian par excellence—which, if found that blended with the natural coloration of the basin.”198 dull, may be ‘walked out on’ without reason to feel the Work on the trail system at Canyon also emphasized the pin prick of conscious rudeness.” The shrines’ inanimate use of natural elements and followed the master plan. nature necessitated an animated and to-the-point presen- When, in 1936, park officials had to repair snow and ice tation of the material being delivered, however. “Being damage to the Upper Falls lookout at the Grand Canyon thus disadvantaged through their inability to frown at a of the Yellowstone, CCC workers rebuilt the stairway and yawning spectator or physically to force him to remain constructed a new overlook “in the form of a terrace that attentive until the last bitter fact is told,” Good advised, featured a naturalistic rock guardrail and was accessible “these inanimate guide facilities should be accorded by by a sturdy log stairway and a log bridge.”199 their devisers all the benefits of interesting presentation Another mainstay of park educational architecture and clear, concise exposition. As interpretive media was the nature shrine (today known as a “wayside ex- they are in theory and in fact truly transitional between hibit”). The park’s first shrine was planned and built at the marker and the museum. They are at once glorified Obsidian Cliff in 1931. In Park and Recreation Structures, marker and museum in embryo.”201 Albert Good distinguished between signs and markers, Yellowstone’s first nature shrine, built in 1933, or shrines as he called them, on the basis of their purpose explained the natural formation of Obsidian Cliff.202 Carl and intent: “Signs function to direct, regulate, or cau- Russell, the park naturalist and museum exhibit expert tion,” he wrote, “whereas the marker and its close cousin, Albright had recruited to plan and organize exhibits at the shrine or graphic guide, serve simply to further the the park’s new trailside museums, had the idea for the public’s understanding and enjoyment of the cultural shrine; Herbert Maier designed the actual structure. aspects of a park.”200 Maier’s design, according to McClelland, perfectly Shrines, according to Good, were the perfect “illustrated the converging principles of rustic architec- educational device for several reasons. First, “[s]hrines or tural design and landscape naturalization.”203 Measuring graphic guides are devices of bringing exposition to the 6' × 16', the shrine had walls “constructed of clusters of very scene of an historic event or natural phenomenon, basaltic columns that had been carefully selected from a

130 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #123214 “typical shrine,” with “rustic, hooded frames housing glass-fronted cases to display specimens, illustrations, and printed matter pertaining to a natural phenomenon at hand.”209 It is important to note that the appearance of the nature shrines coincided with, and was in fact an out- growth of the rise of auto tourism in Yellowstone. The 1920s had seen an explosion of the number of motorists touring the park, and the trend continued through the 1930s. Waysides with interpretive shelters and exhibits were but one response to this trend. It was just a matter of time before other educational programs were developed to meet the needs of auto tourism. Wayside exhibit near Obsidian Cliff. 1933. Changes in the Educational nearby formation and moved to the site.” The structure Programming was open-sided, with glass covering the exhibit panels and a “wood-shingled overhanging roof . . . carried on In 1930, park managers added a publication, exposed log purlins.” The whole area was made more Trailside Notes for the Motorist and Hiker, and the guided attractive with flagstone paving inside a curb of basaltic auto caravan tour to the list of educational services of- blocks and native plants.204 fered in the park. Introduced on an experimental basis According to Good, this “open air museum-in- in 1929, Trailside Notes was designed to help motorists miniature” was significant because it employed in its obtain reliable information about the park and to sustain construction the materials it was designed to interpret. their interest in park features while behind the wheel. He also admired its design. “The novel motif,” he “Stop the car and look back,” read one instruction to concluded, “is altogether amiable largely because it has motorists. “Go slow but do not park at the blazed post, been employed with logic and restraint.”205 The shrine and take in the wonderful view of Jupiter Terrace,” read has since been modified. The original exhibit case was another.210 The publication was a tremendous success. removed and replaced with “two modern interpretive One visitor from Galesburg, Kansas, opined that the panels mounted on metal posts,” and a low stone wall Trailside Notes should be available at each park entrance, was built between the two stone piers to support these because “[t]ourists miss much that is of interest, that modern panels.206 would be supplied in further descriptive notes.”211 Sub- The nature shrine at Obsidian Cliff was the first sequent editions were indeed filled with many more of several interpretive kiosks located along Yellowstone’s details. By 1939, two volumes existed that interpreted Grand Loop Road. In 1933, Carl Russell and Herbert the biology, history, and primarily the geology of the Maier also designed shrines at Tuff Cliff, Firehole Can- landscape through which visitors drove on the road from yon, and Rhyotravertine Gulch (in the area of the Mam- Mammoth to Old Faithful, through Norris, and back moth Hoodoos and Bunsen Peak). Other kiosks were again through Canyon and Tower Fall. constructed during the early 1930s at Swan Lake Flat, Auto caravans gave “the moving crowd” and those Beaver Dams, and Nymph Lake, but none remain.207 with “an aversion to long hikes” an opportunity to experi- Still others were built to resemble Maier’s design, for ence a ranger-led excursion.212 They consisted of a lead example the Natural Bridge sign and kiosk. Like all the car with a ranger naturalist inside and a string of cars kiosks built during this period, the Natural Bridge kiosk following. The ranger would stop at points of interest consisted of two vertical logs supporting a sign case and and use a megaphone to “carry his message to those in a protective roof covered with hand-split shakes. The the waiting cars.”213 Ranger-naturalist Edward Jones whole structure rested on a mortared stone foundation.208 recognized the need for such a service in his 1929 report Good’s catalogue included a photograph of a visitor on educational activities: “The desire of the average Park standing beside such a kiosk; his description was of a visitor to see as much as possible from his own car must

Refuge in Rusticity 131 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #32689 Creek.219 Superintendent Toll reported that this move “involved the construction of three-quarters of a mile of road, installation of rustic seats for spectators, and the construction of a concrete feeding platform with the necessary water and sewerage facilities.”220 This develop- ment marked the beginning of the bear shows at Otter Creek and the continuation of the uneasy relationship between managing wildlife for their survival and attract- ing them for the enjoyment of park visitors. The Otter Creek feeding station, along with its access road and parking lot, were constructed in 1930– Auto caravan on Mammoth Terraces. 1937. 1931. The feeding platform, made of reinforced concrete and measuring 18' × 40', had a source of rinsing water at one end and a drain and cesspool at the other so it could be recognized and provided for,” he wrote, adding that be flushed and cleaned regularly.221 A “small reinforced the “increased number reached would definitely repay concrete dam” impounded the water of several small extra expense.”214 Bumpus also commented on the need springs about 450 feet up the canyon from the feeding for auto caravans, noting that “Autominded parties are ground so it could be used for cleaning the platform. not given to hiking.”215 There was also a protective, eight-foot barrier of timber The first auto caravan took place in the Mammoth cut into the slope and hidden from view to “present an area, and featured the buffalo show corral and the hot unbroken slope to the spectators” which, along with a springs. It was such a success that regularly scheduled wire fence added around 1933, protected the spectators caravans were also conducted at Old Faithful, Tower, and from the possibility of attack.222 Toll had recommended Canyon the next year. Success, however, brought its own the retaining wall as a way to both protect and please the set of problems. The tours often became unwieldy—one crowd. As he put it in a letter to McCarter, “If a retaining Old Faithful tour reportedly included over 300 cars and wall, which could act as a barricade, is constructed, it 800 visitors—and concessioners complained that they might be possible to gradually bring the feeding platform were drawing potential customers away from their own closer to the observation platform, which would of course tours.216 To rectify the latter problem, the NPS allowed add to its interest.”223 the transportation concessioner’s buses to join the cara- While park officials were utilizing bears as a tourist vans at Mammoth.217 attraction both at the feeding grounds and in the form By the 1930s, the park’s fish hatchery activities of roadside feeding, which was rampant by this time, were proving so popular that a uniformed guide was they were also encouraging habits that were bad for both stationed at the Lake Hatchery to explain the process to bears and people. Teaching bears to associate people with visitors. During 1931, more than 24,500 tourists heard food rewards turned the animals into a source of both this presentation. Furthermore, a ranger for fishery activi- entertainment and trouble, and by the 1930s, bears had ties was hired in 1931, something Fred J. Foster, district become a source of serious consternation to the NPS. In supervisor of the Bureau of Fisheries, had recommended 1932, Toll wrote of the problems in his annual report: the year before. Fishing was also gaining in popular- “Bears were numerous everywhere and were really the ity, which made Foster worry that without increased main source of grief to the park administration and hatchery operations, the park’s waters might become less campers,” he lamented. Without irony, Toll claimed that productive. In 1931, he announced plans to construct the bears had become “exceeding[ly] bold, particularly additional fish-rearing ponds at Old Faithful.218 around the campgrounds and housekeeping cabin areas, That year, another of the park’s interpretive pro- doing considerable damage to cars and property belong- grams developed a more formalized format and venue, ing to visitors and park operators.” The situation was as the practice of feeding bears for tourist enjoyment dire enough—the number of complaints had reached was built into the landscape. For a host of reasons, park record proportions and there was “some loss in travel” officials moved the bear feeding site at Canyon from (i.e., income), due to “the undesirable publicity which behind the hotel to a more distant location on Otter the park received from newspapers and visitors”—that

132 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #27353-7

Bear feeding grounds at Otter Creek. 1936.

Director Albright gave his permission for the “disposal haps the new bear feeding grounds should be closer to of surplus bears, both black and grizzly.”224 Lake instead.228 At this point, NPS officials appeared to believe Before these plans could go any further, however, that once the few problem bears were disposed of, the two grizzly maulings occurred: a visitor was injured problem would be solved. As noted above, it is difficult to while hiking around the Canyon area, and an employee detect in the official record any awareness of the irony of was hurt at a picnic site.229 These encounters made the the situation. “Measures taken last year to dispose of the NPS nervous enough to close the Old Faithful feeding worst trouble makers have had their effect,” Toll wrote grounds and put any new feeding areas on hold. Accord- in 1933, “and fewer complaints and damages resulted ing to the new superintendent, Edmund Rogers, this was this year.” At the same time, Toll wrote in glowing terms done because the Old Faithful feeding ground, which was that the numerous mother bears and cubs “seen daily closer to a developed area than the one at Otter Creek, around the Canyon feeding ground . . . presented one “enticed grizzly bears into the crowded utility area, which of the finest wild animal shows to be found anywhere.” . . . was considered . . . hazardous because of the nature Striking the right balance was believed to be crucial: of this species of bears.” Park officials also killed four too many bears posed a problem, but more bears were grizzlies that year and shipped another four to zoos. In definitely better. The fact that there were fewer bears the same report, Rogers wrote that the feeding ground at the Old Faithful “Lunch Counter for Bears” than at at Canyon was “very popular,” and that as many as 67 Canyon mattered enough to park officials to warrant grizzlies were seen there on one night.230 mentioning in Toll’s 1933 annual report.225 Toll referred By 1937, the bear feeding ground at Otter Creek to the bear shows in 1935 as “splendid and spectacular,” was the only one operating in the park; consequently, it and was pleased to report that “[e]ach year more bear are was very busy. Rogers reported that the area’s large park- reported at the feeding ground at Canyon.” He reported ing lot had proven “entirely inadequate to accommodate that the “high count” for one night in 1935 was 48, as the 500 to 600 automobiles in which visitors travel to see compared to the previous “high count” of 38.226 the bear show.”231 He also noted that the amphitheater Bear shows were so popular that toward the end of was packed with people. “During the year it was not the summer of 1934, plans for a new bear feeding ground uncommon,” he wrote, “for 1,200 to 1,500 persons to were underway. An earlier suggestion of constructing one be seated in this amphitheater at one time.”232 off the Black Sand Basin Road was overruled in favor There is no doubt that there was a contradiction of a new “bear feeding amphitheater” on the Firehole between trying to attract bears and simultaneously keep River, southeast of Old Faithful at the location of the them at a safe distance. Encounters between humans old feeding grounds from the early 1910s, then called and bears continued; several grizzly bears were trapped “Bears’ Playground.”227 Further discussions led to the and removed from campgrounds, and ten were killed opinion that to relieve congestion at Old Faithful, per- in 1937. Black bears, habitually fed by tourists at the

Refuge in Rusticity 133 park’s roadsides, were the source of the vast majority of amount of food on the platform at Otter Creek was bear–human conflicts, however. Human injuries from being reduced “in order to overcome the heavy concen- black bears averaged 46 per year from 1931–1969, with tration of bears in one area.” “To the end of the fiscal 115 reported in 1937 alone. That same year, 41 black year, about 20 grizzlies were in the area,” he wrote in his bears were killed as a result.233 NPS personnel developed annual report, “and we hope to maintain this number an excuse as to why these encounters were occurring: and avoid the heavy concentration which presents a real tourists were not following precautionary guidelines hazard to park visitors.”239 for appropriate behavior around bears. “In practically Tied to this change in park policy was the increased all cases [of dangerous encounters with bears resulting influence of ecological thinking in some sectors of the in injuries],” wrote Rogers, “the injured persons have NPS.240 In 1929, George Melendez Wright, who had been feeding bears or have failed to take due precautions first joined the NPS in 1927, working as assistant park when in the vicinity of where bears are being fed or photo- naturalist at Yosemite National Park under then-natural- graphed.”234 In other words, it was ostensibly acceptable ist Carl P. Russell, proposed to Director Albright that a for the park to provide visitors with opportunities to wildlife survey program be established for the National watch and photograph bears feeding on human food in Park Service, to be funded personally by him until the designated areas, and for visitors and bears to interact program’s value could be demonstrated.241 Wright was to a certain degree, so long as people abided by strict joined in his proposal by biologist Joseph Dixon and behavioral guidelines. naturalist Ansel Hall. Albright agreed, and the agency’s Another development in 1937 was that bear Wild Life Survey was formed. Wright served as chief of feeding was moved from the Protection Department the survey, which became the Wildlife Division in 1933, to the Naturalist Department (formerly the Education after Congress (instead of Wright) started funding the Department).235 With this move, the bear shows became group’s work. The survey was based out of Berkeley, Cali- an official part of the park’s educational program. Thus, fornia, in association with the NPS’s Education Division when the Naturalist Department gave lectures on the (then under the direction of Hall). Wright was joined by natural history of the black and grizzly bears at the feed- fellow biologists Joseph Dixon and Ben H. Thompson, ing ground, they were understood to be “a blending of as well as secretary Mrs. George Pease.242 the recreational, intellectual, and spiritual.”236 Long a Dixon, Wright, and Thompson published the popular attraction under the Protection Department, the results of their work in a series entitled Fauna of the lecture/bear show, in which a naturalist described “the National Parks of the United States, with an aim toward life and habits of bears as they have been observed in Yel- “the preservation of the native values of wilderness life” lowstone,” continued to be “[o]ne of the most popular in the national parks. In each park, an effort was made lectures” given in the park.237 Due to the popularity of to determine original and current wildlife conditions, to the attraction, park naturalists gave “two lectures each identify causes of adverse changes, and to recommend evening [at the feeding ground] . . . so as to accommodate actions that would restore park wildlife to its original a larger group of people.”238 At the rate of two lectures status. The authors acknowledged that “the parks’ fau- per evening, assuming that many people didn’t choose nas have been extremely sensitive to the influences of to sit through both lectures, as many as 3,000 people civilization,” and their goal was thus to document the may have seen the Otter Creek bear show on any given “conclusions of a general investigation of the vertebrate night during the summer season. life of the national parks with emphasis on these human The bear shows’ days were numbered, however. relationships.”243 They proposed “a program of complete Several factors converged to put an end to orchestrated investigation, to be followed by appropriate administra- bear feeding practices and to close the Otter Creek tive action.”244 feeding ground after U.S. entry into World War II. One Fauna No. 1 identified eight negative repercussions obvious factor was the increased danger humans and of the bear feeding shows in Yellowstone: the spread of bears faced because of this unnatural arrangement. By diseases or parasites encouraged by unnatural concen- the end of the decade, there were clear indications that tration of animals; the possibility that the garbage itself the Protection Department and the park administration could introduce parasites to the bears; the possibility were becoming alarmed by the number of grizzly bears that feeding on unnatural foods could negatively af- at the feeding ground. In 1938, Rogers wrote that the fect bear physiology over time; the possibility that the

134 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” uneven distribution of food could have deleterious conditions for the park’s bears, Thompson’s and Wright’s effects on bear physiology (garbage being plentiful at greatest contribution to human/bear safety concerns may the height of the summer, but scarce in the fall, during have been their recommendation to use bear-proof food hyperphagia, when bears need the most food just prior storage and garbage containers in the campgrounds.249 to hibernation); the unnatural advantage enjoyed by They maintained concern for tourist enjoyment, older bears in competition for food; the absence of bears however, and so they wrote that birds and mammals that from their natural niches during summer; habituation frequented the park’s roadsides were “of relatively greater as bears lost their fear of humans and taught their cubs value because they are the ones which are most apt to be the same; and finally, a public relations problem. Due seen.” Because roadside cleanup efforts removed cover to the constant, vicious scuffles that took place as bears and debris used by wildlife, they advocated keeping fought over garbage, “[b]ears appear at their worst on such efforts to “the absolute minimum,” citing existing the garbage platform,” wrote the authors, “so that their agency orders to preserve wildlife values even while in the characters, in the minds of the visitors, suffer as well as course of emergency conservation programs. Essentially, does very probably their physical well-being from this they called for a three-pronged approach to improving manner of presentation.”245 the tourist–wildlife interface: first, “permitting” the Wright et al. acknowledged the positive effects of wilderness to “come up as close as possible to human the shows in fostering an appreciation for the wonders concentration areas;” second, not “pauperizing” or tam- that the national parks had to offer, but averred that since ing park animals; and, third, exercising “ingenuity . . . to the parks’ popularity was now securely established, it introduce visitors to the animals’ environments without was time “to modify the old practices in the interests of their presence having adverse effects.”250 the welfare of both people and bears.” Stating that the Another wildlife show—this one at the Antelope problem was worthy of further study, they recommended Creek buffalo corral—was also modified to reflect the that in the meantime, it might be feasible to reduce idea of naturalizing wildlife exhibits, thereby assuring the amount of food provided, and improve its content. that visitors would see wild animals while keeping Knowing fully that park managers would be reluctant to conditions somewhat natural. In 1934, the NPS built discontinue the wildly popular shows, they proposed that a 4-acre show corral and a 300-acre pasture as a way to “[p]erhaps a natural bear food, such as honey, could be keep bison in place long enough for visitors to catch a used to attract bears to certain places so that the visitor glimpse of the creatures. By the end of the decade, park limited to a very short stay in the park could be assured officials found a way to reduce the staged quality of the of at least one good view of a bear.” Nudging the NPS corral concept. The 1939 master plan proposed doing toward the preservation and education of wilderness-like away with the show corral, which was easily recognized values, and warning the agency about the possibility of as unnatural, “and develop[ing] a buffalo show similar visitor “burn-out” relative to bear watching, the authors to [the] moose show on Mammoth to Norris Junction advised, “[t]he sight of one bear under natural conditions road” by keeping only the 300-acre pasture. This larger is more stimulating than close association with dozens of enclosure would be harder to notice and thus would bears. Even now one hears more accounts of encounters more closely resemble natural conditions.251 with an individual bear than of the bear show.”246 Other efforts to reduce the influence of unnatural Thus, NPS biologists tried to strike a balance conditions in the park were underway in the 1930s. In between the conservation and enjoyment of the park’s April 1930, Director Albright issued a memorandum resources, with the goal of calculating a policy to “secure to all parks regarding the planting of exotic seeds and the best values to the visitor from park wildlife” while plants. The new policy prohibited the introduction of “avoid[ing] destruction of the primitive status of that foreign animals or plants in the parks “where they will wildlife.”247 “[W]herever any animal has been garbage- not be under control.” While supporting the intent of the fed, hand-fed, petted, and tamed, the results have been policy, Toll argued for allowing Yellowstone’s employees detrimental both to the animal and to man in the park,” to have individual gardens with vegetables and flow- they argued in 1934. “If we do not present park animals ers. For support, he cited nationally known landscape wild and in their natural background,” they continued, architect Grosvenor Atterbury’s suggestion that vines be “we do not present a wildlife picture of national parks[’] grown on the buildings at Fort Yellowstone. Toll feared significance.”248 In addition to advocating more natural that if employees were not allowed individual gardens,

Refuge in Rusticity 135 they would see this new policy as simply “one more Conclusion regulation.” Furthermore, he felt that “the objective served was theoretical rather than practical.” “All build- While the decade of the 1930s was a period of ings are artificial,” he wrote, “and I see no objection to change for Yellowstone National Park—park officials having domestic vines and plants in their immediate introduced master plans, standardized building designs, vicinity.”252 In November 1934, predator control policies camping policies, and educational programs, for exam- came to an end. ple—it was also a period of continuation and entrench- While the NPS sought ways to reduce the impact ment. The park remained a protected area and actually of humans on the park, agency officials still held fast to grew in acreage in the face of economic catastrophe, and several practices that would be deemed inappropriate it remained a favorite haunt of tourists in search of their in later decades. Park personnel still fought forest fires rustic roots. In fact, for countless Americans facing eco- aggressively, controlled insect and blister rust infesta- nomic hardship, Yellowstone became a refuge in rusticity, tions, took measures to generally decrease the number a place where they could soothe the impacts of economic of insects around the park, and allowed domestic vines difficulties by experiencing America’s wild lands. and plants at Mammoth.

136 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” CHAPTER SEVEN

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity”

Mission 66 in Yellowstone National Park 1941–1965 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #43145 The war years were difficult ones for the nation and the park. Attendance figures plummeted from 581,761 visitors in 1941 to 64,144 in 1943, leading to a curtailment of services provided by both concessioners and the National Park Service (NPS). The number of NPS employees also dropped, as many rangers entered military service and recruitment of seasonal employees became all but impossible. Furthermore, Yellowstone’s infrastructure suffered as the federal government diverted attention and money away from park maintenance and construction to the war effort. There were also threats to national park resources, as military officials sought ways to acquire timber, minerals, and rangeland to fuel the war machine. When attendance figures rebounded more quickly than anyone expected after the war, Yellowstone Superintendent Edmund Rogers. 1951. was poorly equipped to serve those visitors.1 Conces- sion and government services were inadequate both in terms of quality and quantity, causing many visitors to sion of enjoyment, park officials moved during the later complain to their congressmen. The NPS’s response years of this period from providing for enjoyment and took the form of a service-wide modernization program protection of resources to recreating “vignettes of primi- called Mission 66. The legacy of Mission 66 was a series tive America,” and emphasizing wilderness values. Park of programs and structures designed to serve large num- officials also grew to understand that the survival of an bers of visitors and to move them efficiently, and with individual species was dependent upon the health and as little impact as possible, through the nation’s parks. survival of its ecosystem—the larger and much more Another legacy of this program, which clearly favored the complex system of interconnectedness between organ- development side of the NPS’s mandate, was the negative isms and their surroundings. Thus, the park’s protection reaction it generated from supporters of wilderness and policies became more focused on ecological awareness historical values in the national parks. and the conviction that rather than individual species, Educational programming, or interpretation as it was their habitat, as well as ecosystem processes, that it came to be called, and natural resource management required protection. At the same time, park officials also expanded and changed in the postwar period. Torn came to believe that Yellowstone’s forest resources and between the dual pressures of preservation and provi- certain of its wildlife species (such as ungulates), both of

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” 137 which had been actively protected for so long, actually McLaughlin was born in 1905 in Fremont, Ohio, required less protection. The latter years of this period and graduated with a degree in forestry from Colorado brought major changes to the park’s longstanding policies State University. He went to work for the NPS in 1928, of maximizing visitor accommodation and promoting coincidentally as a ranger in Yellowstone National Park. the well-being of selected species, as managers began After rising to the rank of assistant chief park ranger in to question whether the park could be developed in a 1930, McLaughlin left Yellowstone in 1931, only to way that would absorb visitation without damaging its return as superintendent 33 years later. He spent the natural treasures, and whether merely “protecting” those intervening years as assistant superintendent of Rocky same treasures would really lead to their preservation. Mountain National Park, second lieutenant in the U.S. The challenges faced by Yellowstone’s superintendents in Air Force, and superintendent of three national parks: those years of increased development and philosophical Mesa Verde, Grand Teton, and Grand Canyon. He also change required every bit of experience those leaders served as assistant regional director of the NPS’s Midwest had amassed. Region for five years. He dedicated his three years at the helm of Yellowstone, as Haines put it, to finishing Mission 66 and determining “further objectives” in the Leaders of the World War II and park.3 Postwar Period Yellowstone’s superintendents faced new hurdles during and after World War II, when issues of staffing, It was up to Edmund Rogers to help the park adjust land use, development, and management philosophy, to the deprivation of World War II and the first shocks of and their attendant political pressures, all became more the postwar period. For ten years after the war ended, the complex and intense. These issues played themselves out park tried desperately to welcome and entertain its war- on almost every level of park management during the weary visitors, who were ready for a vacation. Rogers’s postwar years, making the superintendent’s job highly administration oversaw the first stages of construction challenging. The first task to accomplish after the war, at Canyon Village and made important decisions with however, was to get the park back on its feet. respect to wildlife policy. When Rogers became special assistant to the di- rector of the NPS in 1956, his replacement was Lemuel The Effects of War on Yellowstone Alonzo “Lon” Garrison, who arrived in the park after the National Park 1956 summer season. Born in 1903 in Pella, Iowa, Gar- rison worked for the U.S. Forest Service throughout his In addition to the severe drop in visitation, the first college years. Upon graduation in 1932, he took a job at half of the 1940s was marked by closures of both private Sequoia National Park as a seasonal park ranger and then and public operations in Yellowstone. The park’s last two worked his way through several lower-level NPS jobs remaining CCC camps closed in 1942, and many con- and assistant superintendent positions in Glacier and cession operations did not open during the war. In May Grand Canyon national parks to the superintendency 1942, the park’s nursery, operated at the Game Ranch, of Big Bend National Park in 1952. In 1956, Garrison closed. Prior to plowing, harrowing, disking, and seeding became the first chief of conservation and protection the area with crested wheat grass, CCC workers shipped for the NPS, and chairman of the steering committee 27,000 lodgepole pine transplants to Glacier National appointed by Director Wirth to oversee implementation Park and transplanted some trees to the Mammoth of Mission 66. That November, Garrison was asked to area.4 Also in 1942, the U.S. Weather Bureau, which orchestrate Mission 66 in Yellowstone, and to serve as had operated in the park since 1903, ceased its activi- the park’s superintendent. His effectiveness at dealing ties. Rangers continued to make weather observations, with a range of perspectives led to his becoming known however, by sending their data to the nearest station at as “the spokesman for the conservation movement in West Yellowstone, Montana.5 the northern Rocky Mountain region.”2 When he left In June 1943, NPS Director Newton Drury an- the park in 1964 to head the Midwest Region of the nounced that the agency would comply with all federal NPS, he was replaced by John S. McLaughlin, another policies brought on by the national emergency. Drury NPS veteran. acknowledged that a definite curtailment of facilities,

138 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” both concession- and park-operated, would occur, but moving the headquarters arose again in 1960, when the he wanted the parks kept open for the enjoyment and Billings (Montana) Gazette reported that Wyoming’s U.S. relaxation of the armed forces and for those people who representative Keith Thompson (R) had sought House could reach them under the current tire and gasoline approval for moving park headquarters to Lake—a more rationing.6 Furthermore, he wanted it understood that central location, and one that would require park roads the protection and the administration of the parks had to kept open year-round, thereby increasing revenue op- not been reduced. Throughout his administration, portunities for the park’s gateway communities.11 While Drury strove to prevent national park timber, mineral, the issue of keeping roads open did not disappear, efforts and grassland resources from being commandeered for to move park headquarters ended after Director Conrad the war effort.7 Wirth opposed the relocation plan.12 As could be expected, park development projects Construction work also slowed to a snail’s pace were postponed during the war years. Several areas slated until after the war. Only a few buildings were added to for change in the park’s master plan of 1941 were put the roster of park administrative structures during the on hold. One notable change planned in 1941 was a war and postwar periods. In 1944, the park’s protection revision of the traffic pattern at Madison Junction. Park department received a new snowshoe cabin. The Nez officials envisioned a road system running completely Perce Snowshoe Cabin, built by the CCC and located outside of the “sacred area” designated in 1933 around just north of Nez Perce Creek about three-quarters of National Park Mountain and the campfire site where, a mile east of the Madison-to-Old Faithful road, was supposedly, plans had been discussed in 1870 to create remodeled and made ready for winter use. This was the the nation’s first national park.8 At that time, the road only historic snowshoe cabin not made of logs; a 1939 from Madison Junction to Old Faithful ran between decree restricting the use of logs for park structures re- the museum and the Madison River before crossing the sulted here in a frame, as opposed to a log structure. Al- Gibbon River to follow the Firehole River to the Upper though the Nez Perce Cabin retained most of the features Geyser Basin. The idea of moving the road farther east of cabins built in the 1930s, including log porch posts was finally executed after the war, when manpower and that supported an extended front porch and exposed log funding returned to the park. rafter tails and purlins, it was made of lumber. The plan Also slated for change in 1941, but not actually did call for log trim wherever possible, however, to carry accomplished until long after the war, was the relocation forth the rustic style of the 1930s cabins.13 of the Norris road away from the geyser basin. Managers After the war, the prospect of welcoming a record actually wished to relocate the road less out of concern number of visitors to facilities that had been virtually for the thermal area than for visitor safety; the existing neglected for the previous several years was disturbing road required visitors to park near the museum and then to both park management and concessioners. When a cross the main highway to get to the geyser basin.9 Other record 814,907 people entered the park in 1946, incen- changes recommended in the master plan of 1939 and tives to resume construction soared, but suffered imme- again in 1941, such as the proposed revisions for the diately from a dearth of financial resources. During the checking stations at both the North and West entrances 1930s and early 1940s, park staff had relied on public and the new village development at Canyon, were also works programs, particularly the Civilian Conservation not implemented until after the war. Corps, for much of the maintenance work and many Another proposed alteration was the removal of of the small construction activities, and on the Public park headquarters from the Mammoth area to the North Works Administration for help with larger construction Entrance. Initially considered as a way to conserve ra- projects. In 1946, however, Yellowstone’s superintendent tioned items such as gasoline, tires, and other materials, had to pay his regular staff to improve and maintain park the idea was much discussed, but did not come to frui- facilities from an all but empty purse.14 tion. In September 1945, Regional Director Lawrence One postwar construction project that did receive C. Merriam asked Superintendent Rogers to make funding was housing for park employees. Work on em- a recommendation about the proposed removal and ployee housing at Lower Mammoth resumed after park provide alternative proposals to reduce Mammoth-area landscape architect Frank Mattson assessed the condition traffic congestion, should he not favor the removal.10 of housing in the area and called for “modern housing Rogers did not advocate the move. Arguments for for all year use” in 1946. The master plan was revised in

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” 139 1946 as well.15 But for three years after 1956, the situa- wildlife biologists George Wright, Joseph Dixon, and tion again looked grim, and park employees took matters Ben Thompson, who, in their 1930s series, Fauna of the into their own hands. In response to inadequate park National Parks, had entreated NPS officials to find less housing, many permanent and seasonal employees in artificial ways for visitors to interact with wildlife in the 1957 brought their own mobile homes to the park, caus- parks. Other wildlife studies also influenced park policy ing numerous problems for park management. Parking during the war years. As a result of research by biologist the mobile homes too closely together at the site of the Olaus J. Murie, for example, further changes were made old Mammoth CCC camp presented safety problems, to bear management, including the prompt removal and in addition to unsanitary conditions due to lack of sewer pit-burial or burning of all garbage, a practice started in connections. Citing these problems, and noting that the 1943.20 According to Rogers, Murie’s research results park was losing employees because of the housing situ- were “very valuable in formulating a program which ation and lack of laundry facilities, park officials called [would] discourage bears from frequenting the areas for a modern laundry facility with shower and bath to of human habitation and thereby reduce the friction be built in the area, sewer and water connections to be between the visitors and the bears.”21 In 1946, the bear installed, and for the purchase of ten new modern mobile feeding ground at Otter Creek was razed and the site homes.16 The housing problem was alleviated somewhat graded. Superintendent Rogers called it “the end of a in June 1959, when the Cop Construction Company of feature . . . [that has] provided a spectacular exhibition Billings, Montana, was awarded a contract to build ten for those persons who were privileged to witness it.” single-story, three-bedroom, frame residences, with full Rogers hoped that the end of the bear shows would “give basements and attached garages at Lower Mammoth for the animals a chance to live in a more natural existence a cost of $176,700. The new residences were designed in keeping with the park and . . . tend to carry out the by Orr, Pickering Architects of Billings.17 general policy of the NPS to allow all of the park wildlife The Naturalist Department also suffered extensive- to carry on without the assistance of man.”22 ly during wartime, as custodial and protective activities In the master plan of 1941, park officials also became the overriding concern of park administrators. proposed changes to the Lamar Buffalo Ranch, provided While all museums remained open during the 1942 that the buffalo herd could be proven self-sustaining. By season, all but the one at Mammoth closed in subsequent 1944, as park officials became more confident that the seasons. Auto caravans, lecture series, guide services, herd no longer needed human assistance, they were ready campfire meetings, and the publication of Yellowstone to settle questions of whether further development of the Nature Notes were terminated, and many fewer natural- ranch was necessary. Park managers also changed buffalo ists were available for site interpretation or assistance of feeding practices. Use of the large pasture at Antelope any kind as their numbers and departmental funding Creek was discontinued, and fences, including the enclo- shrank to their lowest levels in years.18 sure assuring visitors a view of buffalo and the drift fence Several visitor programs related to wildlife also near the ranch, were removed in April 1944.23 According stopped during these war years. For example, the bear to Rogers, the drift fence had been used in connection shows were discontinued after the 1941 season; the Otter with summertime buffalo roundups and wintertime Creek bear feeding grounds did not open for business in reduction programs.24 Such changes reflected a new ap- 1942, or any year after that. While this closure could be proach to managing the park’s natural resources. called an unexpected result of wartime conditions, park By 1947, most of the vacant naturalist positions officials had been looking for a way to close this chapter had been filled, and the new position of park biologist of the park’s history for several years. The ostensible rea- was occupied when Walter H. Kittams transferred to sons for not opening the feeding grounds—the closure of the park from the Billings, Montana, offices of the U.S. most Canyon facilities, the shortage of ranger-naturalist Fish and Wildlife Service. The Naturalist Division was talks, and the lack of park bus travel—were secondary to back to pre-war staffing and initiated a new program for Superintendent Rogers’s desire to put an end to what he children from 6 to 14 years of age that involved nature considered an unnatural practice. Wartime conditions, trips and some nature craft work.25 In 1949, Naturalist with low visitation, limited services, and the nation’s at- Wayne Replogle researched the route of the Bannock tention diverted, provided the perfect opportunity.19 Trail by hiking into the backcountry and interviewing In part, Rogers was responding to the findings of long-time residents in the area, particularly in West

140 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #125255-2

Hay operations at Lamar Buffalo Ranch.

Yellowstone, Montana, and the Henry’s Lake area of period was to preserve the park by educating the public Idaho. By this time, all museums were operating on a about how to appreciate its treasures. Vick attributed this normal schedule, though visitation numbers indicated thinking to a “system-wide concern for park values that that Fishing Bridge Museum, which was off the main reflected the philosophical stance of . . . NPS Director travel route, received fewer visitors than the others. The . . . Newton Drury.”29 Drury, director from 1940 until outdoor exhibits were receiving rave reviews, especially 1951, when the Eisenhower administration took office, the one at Artist Point and another devoted to beavers was a preservationist. As past director of the Save-the- in the park.26 But all was not necessarily well with the Redwoods League in California, Drury believed that protection of the park’s treasures. the NPS should provide primarily custodial care of After the war, as visitors returned to the park the parks, developing them as little as possible. This in droves, their large numbers taxed the Naturalist attitude was evident in Chief Park Naturalist C. Max Division’s ability to both interpret the park’s splendors Bauer’s 1946 report decrying the extensive destruction and protect them from overuse and abuse. According to of the park’s formations and other features that occurred historian Denise Vick, the new concerns were basically after the war. The “average visitor this year shows less twofold: how to educate such large groups about correct appreciation or understanding of park values than ever park behavior, including instilling an appreciation of before,” wrote Bauer. His solution was an educational its many fragile areas, and how to protect the park (in program that “emphasized some of these points rather particular, its thermal formations) from erosion caused than to emphasize the attractiveness of the parks for the by foot traffic. One solution—to increase the number of purpose of getting more visitors.”30 This approach would ranger-naturalists so groups could be smaller—was not change drastically beginning in 1951, however, with the implemented until 1953. These additional rangers came appointment of NPS Director Conrad Wirth, creator of too late, and their numbers were easily offset by increases Mission 66, who remained in office until 1964. in interpretive program participation.27 In 1949, park managers proposed an interesting solution to the problem of thermal-area erosion: the park Mission 66 in Yellowstone National would install movable, wooden “duckwalks” over the Park older trails, both to encourage visitors to stay on the trails and to lessen the impact of “aimless wandering about Mission 66 was the brainchild of Director Wirth. the thermal areas.” These prefabricated walkways (4' × Wirth, who had studied landscape architecture under 8' wooden sections) proved popular with the visitors, Frank Waugh at Massachusetts Agricultural College, and offered improved safety, and protected these fragile zones who had been strongly involved with the NPS’s CCC from trampling. Plus, prefabricated sections, unlike older programs, began conceptualizing the program almost blacktopped walkways, were easily rearranged to accom- as soon as he became director.31 Any serious program, modate changing conditions in thermal areas.28 he realized, would require congressional support and One goal of park officials during the postwar active compliance on the part of concessioners. In 1953,

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” 141 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #43016 he discussed a long-term building program with one important concessioner: Yellowstone Park Company president William Nichols. These discussions pertained to improvements in the proposed Canyon Village and Lake Lodge areas.32 The Yellowstone Park Company was entering the negotiating period for a new contract at the time. In 1955, Director Wirth wrote to Nichols pro- posing changes in concession operations, as well as in the arrangement of existing facilities. He suggested that “drastic measures” might need to be taken at Old Faithful, including moving eating and sleeping accom- modations out of the Upper Geyser Basin. Wirth realized that implementing any such “dream plan” would require sufficient private funds and government appropriations, NPS Director Conrad Wirth. 1956. and he told Nichols that for the NPS to meet the desires of the public for the next ten years, each park would have to examine its particular needs. Concerning his proposed sake: “Protection, then, while an absolute requirement, program, Wirth declared, is not an end in itself,” Wirth insisted in promotional material for his Mission 66 program, “but a means to an This new look at the parks I am calling ‘Mission end—it is requisite to the kind and quality of enjoyment 66.’ I have outlined ‘Mission 66’ to the Congres- contemplated in the establishment and perpetuation of sional committees and the Department. They parks by the Nation. Thus, we complete our concept of have shown considerable interest, and I am cer- park purpose: The primary justification for a National tain it will go forward. ‘Mission 66’ gets its name Park System lies in its capacity to provide enjoyment in from the fact that the National Park Service will its best sense, now and in the future.”35 be 50 years old in 1966. The best way to celebrate In an NPS manual for Mission 66, the Department that year will be to have the park organizations of Interior clarified the connection between protection and facilities as they should be to meet the visitor and use: “The law [the 1916 National Park Service Act] needs. We have ten years to do it.33 insisted that these areas were to be so managed that their natural qualities would remain unimpaired; for only if Wirth’s ten-year, multimillion-dollar plan was thus protected would they provide the fullest degree approved by President Dwight Eisenhower in January of enjoyment and inspiration for present and future 1956. Designed to remedy the backlog of construction Americans.” In these terms, protection of the park was and maintenance projects in the nation’s parks and to important primarily as a means of achieving public use bolster woefully inadequate concessioner facilities, the and enjoyment. As the manual described it: “Without plan, as one agency publication put it, was “to meet the the concept of public use and enjoyment the function needs of a much greater number of visitors and at the of preservation and protection is without meaning.”36 same time safeguard fully the wilderness, scenic, scientific This passage emphasized an anthropocentric ideology and historic resources entrusted to the National Park of nature and preservation, indicating that the human Service.”34 need for recreation justified preservation.37 The tension between the NPS’s dual mission of According to author Brian C. Kenner, the Wirth preservation and use increased under Mission 66, and administration could emphasize use of the nation’s parks took a definite turn toward use. According to historian because it added the word “maximum” to the mandate; Linda McClelland, the plan “unequivocally emphasized the manual describing and justifying Mission 66 read, “It use over preservation and endeavored to enhance the is the task of the National Park Service . . . to assure the quality of the visitor’s experience through the develop- American people opportunity for maximum beneficial ment of modern facilities.” She noted that Wirth’s own use and enjoyment” [emphasis added]. As Kenner noted, words pointed to the idea of preservation for enjoyment’s “The use of the word ‘maximum’ perhaps best reveals

142 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” the approach of the Wirth administration toward park structure of a size appropriate for the increase in visitors use. The word had not been used in policy statements using the facilities.42 Mission 66 buildings, at least at prior to Mission 66.”38 the outset of the program, were intended to be “simple To ensure “maximum beneficial use and enjoy- contemporary buildings that perform[ed] their assigned ment,” new facilities were planned in many parks to function[s] and respect[ed] their environment[s].”43 The house visitors and employees and to instruct visitors. Park Service Modern Style, argued Allaback, merely Campgrounds, sanitary facilities, and roads would be “reinterpreted the long-standing commitment to ‘har- improved, updated, and added where necessary, and edu- monize’ architecture with park landscape[s].” At its best, cational or interpretive programs expanded. What shape Park Service Modern architecture, she wrote, harmonized would this new cultural landscape take? Whereas the with its setting in a new way: by being more “understated emphasis during the 1920s and 1930s was on construct- and efficient” than rustic design, and providing “more ing rustic, non-obtrusive structures, Mission 66 planners, programmatic and functional space for less architectural envisioning their program “as a bold and forward-looking presence.” Allaback also pointed out that if the Mission initiative,” rejected these “picturesque prototypes” of 66 structures had been designed in the rustic idiom, they the past, opting instead for newer, “modern methods of “would have taken on the dimensions and appearance of landscape and architectural design.”39 major resort hotels”—hardly non-obtrusive structures.44 Designers of these new structures, working under Third, while rustic architecture had begun to take on the guidance of William G. Carnes, head of the Mission “negative connotations of [being] dated, inadequate, 66 staff, placed a premium on efficiency, modernity, and and even unsanitary,” Park Service Modern architecture cost-effectiveness. Wirth directed architects to “disregard represented a forward-looking mentality of efficiency, precedent, policy, present operation and management hygiene, progress, and innovation—all values the NPS procedures, traditions, and work habits,” to remember was eager to show it possessed.45 “only the fundamental purpose of national parks,” and The first structure built in Yellowstone during this to design projects that would move visitors quickly and period, a combined checking and information station efficiently through the park while getting the “greatest for the West Entrance, was not a Mission 66 building benefit economically” by saving “labor costs, materials, per se, but discussions regarding its construction pre- and equipment.”40 Indeed, the Landscape Division, ac- figured problems that lay ahead. When park officials cording to Wirth, had an important role to play in Mis- corresponded in 1954 with Regional Director Howard sion 66. Landscape architects were “to see that, through Baker about the style of architecture planned—a pre- the techniques of designing [and] constructing . . . the fabricated metal structure—they struck at the heart of parks,” the visitor would obtain the “supreme enjoy- the argument against modern architecture in the park. ment” of the national parks. These park officials, with “The general design and appearance of the buildings, we the master plan as road map, would “steer the course of believe, are admirable as buildings without considering how the land [was] to be used.” The end result would be their surroundings or use,” Rogers wrote. The design “an orderly and well-conceived development plan.”41 and materials “would appear to be very appropriate for According to architectural historian Sarah Allaback, an airport,” he wrote, but Rogers doubted their appro- landscape architects of the Mission 66 era abandoned priateness for a national park. Rogers’s main concern the rustic style of the past in favor of what has come to was that the building did not look sufficiently park-like. be called “Park Service Modern,” for several reasons: “Our architects,” Rogers added, “have suggested that the first, to construct a rustic structure in the 1950s and park visitor or those seeking admirable park building 1960s on a scale befitting the times would have cost the styles should look to the parks for fresh and vital ideas. government considerably more than it could afford for In other words, the parks should be the source for the both labor and materials. The CCC and PWA workers of best there is in rustic architecture.” “These [buildings] the 1930s had provided cheap labor in a time when logs are the front door to the park,” Rogers reminded Baker. and stone were readily available and relatively cheap. By They should be welcoming visitors to a special place, a the 1950s, glass, steel, concrete, and asphalt, were signifi- place that should feel different from its surroundings, cantly cheaper than the traditional materials. Second, the he argued. A metal structure at the front door would lines of modern, low-lying, and functional architecture not help create this impression. Furthermore, such an were actually considered less conspicuous than a rustic impression was harder to create in Yellowstone, where

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” 143 the surrounding landscape was similar on each side of introduction to the importance of conservation of the the boundary. Consequently, Rogers continued, the NPS park,” wrote Acting Superintendent Warren Hamilton depended largely on its roadsides and buildings to create to the superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park. a sense of difference and specialness.46 Because the information created an opportunity to make Rogers was also concerned about the precedent the visitors aware and supportive of conservation, Hamilton metal structure set. Would concessioners want to follow believed that “the cost to the Service of this operation suit? What answer, after all, could NPS officials provide would then be well returned.”55 Information and check- concessioners if the latter “point[ed] to these metal build- ing stations were completed in fall 1954; exhibits were ings and inquire[d] whether they could do something made and installed the following summer. While the similar”? To park visitors, Rogers noted, officials could exhibits pleased NPS personnel, use of the information explain that the buildings were simply cheaper, but to station proved disappointing, leading park managers to the concessioner such an answer would not suffice.47 decide not to build any kind of larger visitor center in Final plans for the information station and the area. checking booths were revised several times, resulting in The information and checking stations at the West wooden frame structures designed by architects Francis Entrance were not officially part of Mission 66, but they R. Roberson and Robert B. Kemp that, while intended to fit in with the overall pitch of the program: enhancing be temporary—they were part of a pilot project assessing visitor enjoyment of the park through development. the best layout of a national park entrance area—were While the implementation of Mission 66 in Yellowstone to have “design merit,” because visitors would not “of had the effect of encouraging more development—the course be conscious that this [was] a pilot or experimental goal of the program, after all, was to accommodate study.”48 “We would like to have a building adequately increasing numbers of visitors—the intent of the pro- designed, not an unworthy assemblage of CCC pan- gram, in Wirth’s mind, was environmental preservation. els,” Baker wrote to Rogers in his letter introducing the Concentrating and directing use of important and fragile architects.49 The structures would also be on skids so areas would, in effect, preserve them from “random” they could be rearranged to assess which order of build- use, which was tantamount to abuse. Thus, while con- ings—checking station before information station or vice servation groups complained about Wirth’s “aggressive versa—worked best for processing incoming visitors.50 construction program that included the development When word of the experimental layout got out, the of recreational facilities (including . . . boat marinas),” superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park asked Wirth defended it on the grounds of “upholding the for copies of the plans to use as a guide.51 visitor’s right to visit the [park] and do so in large An interesting issue regarding the checking—or numbers,” and claimed that the program’s landscape permit—stations was whether to keep the rangers stand- design and construction components would effectively ing in the booths or to let them sit. Regional Director preserve and protect the natural environment.56 “[T]here Baker believed that the rangers should stand, because, is no surer way to destroy a landscape than to permit as he put it, “uniformed personnel present their best undisciplined use by man,” he wrote in an article for appearance while standing.” He did not see any objec- National Parks magazine in 1958, “and roads, trails, tion to “providing some sort of seating arrangement campgrounds, and other developments are one means, for slack periods,” however.52 Superintendent Rogers perhaps the most important one, of localizing, limiting, agreed that “a ranger on his feet makes the better ‘front’ and channeling park use.”57 for the Service than one sitting,” but he did not want Yellowstone’s official vision for Mission 66 ap- “to preclude the operations being handled from a seated peared in April 1955, in the form of a report called position.”53 “Statement of Current and Future Park Visitor Needs NPS officials believed information stations to be for Accommodations and Facilities in Yellowstone Na- important parts of entrance areas or “toll plazas,” as they tional Park.” While most of the document focused on were called.54 In a sense, the information station was an concession development, the NPS’s role of providing embryonic form of what would later be called a “visitor campgrounds and picnic areas was also reviewed. In center.” The purpose of the station was to help visitors general, the committee that prepared the report called “orient themselves to the size, features, facilities, accom- for planned development that would decrease “the modations, scenery, wildlife and of very great value, an infringement upon sacred areas as the need develops.” As

144 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #147313

Bridge Bay Marina, post-1961. part of the review, the group suggested that development and comparable increases in other visitor facilities.” at West Thumb be abandoned in favor of a new facility Campground capacity would increase to nearly 1,500 to be called “Thumbay.” Here, the government would campsites, and “rental trailer courts” would be avail- construct a public use building, an amphitheater, a camp- able. Overnight accommodations would rise “to about ground, employee housing, roads, and trails, and provide 14,500.” But because, according to the authors, “visitors the utilities. Ultimately, this development became Grant prefer[red] other than hotel-type accommodations,” no Village. Out of concern over excessive intrusion on the new hotels were proposed. “All present hotels will remain geysers and thermal features at Old Faithful, the group during their useful life,” the report stated, “but will ulti- recommended a new developed area in the Lower Geyser mately be replaced as part of a future far-reaching plan.”60 Basin called “Firehole Village.” Finally, the NPS would improve its educational infra- The committee also recommended work at Bridge structure and programming—its roadside information Bay, where the government would construct roads, trails, areas, amphitheaters, and visitor centers—to “enhance a boat landing, docks, employee housing, utilities, and the visitors’ enjoyment” of park features.61 an administrative center; at Tower Fall, where the camp- First on the list of new developments was Canyon ground would be relocated to the Tower Junction area; Village, which had been initiated prior to Mission 66, and at Madison Junction, where a new campground, new closely followed by changes to Fishing Bridge that would housing for rangers and naturalists, and a new amphi- include “an enlarged and modernized . . . campground . theater would be built, the museum would be enlarged, . . [and a] new rental trailer court,” and the completely and the road camp would be relocated.58 new development, “Thumbay.” After those develop- By the end of the decade, park officials published ments were completed, park officials planned to begin on “Mission 66 for Yellowstone National Park,” a pamphlet “the new Bridge Bay area” and the removal of “encroach- outlining the NPS’s plans in the park. Arguing that the ing facilities from the Old Faithful area to a proposed program would safeguard Yellowstone for future visitors, new Firehole Village.”62 The rationale behind these the pamphlet’s authors advocated a three-pronged plan. developments was “conservation . . . through preserva- First, the park’s trails and roads would be improved, tion of the scenic and natural character of the Park,” and which meant relocating some roads “to improve views “developments for human comfort provided on lands of and opportunities for interpretation, and to reduce their lesser Park value.”63 The NPS estimated projected costs intrusion on fragile and scenic features.”59 Second, the for the program to be approximately $55 million, not authors planned for more facilities designed to accom- including concessioners’ projected costs.64 modate visitors. Specifically, they proposed “more than The idea of directing use away from fragile natural twice the present campground capacity, double the areas was not new to Mission 66. For years, Yellowstone present lodge accommodations, increased picnic areas, officials had been planning to direct use away from

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” 145 several “sacred” sites (in the parlance of prewar master serious financial trouble before, during, and after the planning), and they had outlined a plan to remove de- construction process that it was reluctant to undertake velopment around the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone other Mission 66 projects planned for the park.71 Thus, to an area they called Canyon Village in the 1939 master work on the other “villages” was either begun much plan. Furthermore, some park officials—resident land- later than planned, as in the case of Grant Village, or scape architect Frank Mattson for one—had also been never got further than the planning stage, as in the case concerned about development around West Thumb. of Firehole Village. While master plans for the early 1940s indicated the in- The distaste expressed about the architecture of tention to expand development around West Thumb and Canyon Village was reminiscent of the earlier debate call it West Thumb Village, there was active resistance to concerning the West Entrance information station.72 this idea. In 1946, Mattson met with Thomas Vint, chief In May 1956, a doctor from Billings, Montana, wrote of the Washington Office of Design and Construction, to President Nichols of the Yellowstone Park Com- to discuss a proposal to move development away from pany, U.S. Senator Mike Mansfield (Montana), and West Thumb, but nothing happened officially until April the Department of the Interior to state “one man’s 1955, with the “Statement of Current and Future Park protest against the ‘chicken coop’ style architecture of Visitor Needs.” the facilities to be built at Canyon Village.” “Such style Canyon Village was perhaps the best-known Yel- of architecture is fine for Las Vegas gambling halls,” he lowstone example of the NPS’s efforts to relocate devel- chided, “but hardly fits in to our National Parks.” The opment away from a fragile area to an “area better suited writer preferred the rustic beauty of older park facilities. to such developments and [where one could] . . . allow On a separate note—hastily penned on an unused pre- expansion on a well ordered scale.”65 Plans for Canyon scription form—he commented that he had found no Village included the relocation of all tourist facilities to one who disagreed with him, but he doubted “if many the new village and the construction of a new ranger sta- [would] register a protest.”73 tion near the “proposed retail area with possible museum In response to this criticism, Acting Director E. wing and general contact station.”66 T. Scoyen assured Senator Mansfield that the design of Historian Mark Daniel Barringer has contended park buildings was determined by a cadre of “architects, that when Yellowstone became the “showpiece” of Mis- landscape architects, engineers, and administrative per- sion 66, Canyon Village became its “cornerstone.”67 sonnel of the National Park Service” who made “every Others have agreed that Canyon Village was “presented effort to get the best solution of our problems consider- as an example of what [Mission 66] would do for the ing all of the factors including that of cost.” Scoyen also national parks.”68 Because work on the necessary roads, reminded Mansfield that the project was not yet finished, as well as water and sewer conduits to the village had and offered that the doctor’s opinion might be differ- been started years before Mission 66 was conceptualized, ent if he saw the final result, including landscaping.74 the village’s tourist facilities could be expedited relatively Scoyen made a point of noting that the NPS had not quickly and thus, for publicity’s sake, be ready for oc- abandoned efforts to build structures that harmonized cupancy soon after inception of the program.69 Thus, with their surroundings. Quite to the contrary, in fact: the village’s highly publicized groundbreaking ceremony “We appreciate [the doctor’s] interest in maintaining the on June 25, 1956, meant that Mission 66 “was finally, rustic beauty of the architectural facilities in the parks,” undeniably, underway.”70 he told Mansfield, “and we wish to assure you that we The Canyon Village project, formally dedicated in shall do everything possible to guard all of the national August 1957, proved problematic on several fronts: first, parks against the construction of park structures which tourists preferred the old Canyon hotel, even though it will not be compatible with their naturalistic surround- was more expensive, to the new concrete-block-and- ings.”75 glass architecture. In response to this reluctance to Complaints about the Park Service Modern Style patronize the new facilities, as well as the discovery that continued, however. In 1961, an article appeared in At- the hotel was structurally unsound, the Yellowstone lantic Monthly that put the lie to NPS claims that modern Park Company partially closed the building as a way to structures were harmonious with park environs. The “encourage” people to stay at Canyon Village. Second, article criticized the agency for disturbing the “proper the Yellowstone Park Company was experiencing such atmosphere” of the parks. “Under Mission 66,” author

146 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Devereux Butcher wrote, “too many of the parks are be- to be cleared. In addition, considerable dredging and ing cluttered with buildings of freak and austere design. re-channeling of the shoreline—to accommodate the No longer are the architects concerned with producing planned harbor with its boat landings, docks, and ma- structures of beauty and charm that help to create a rina—would be necessary.81 On one level, such changes proper atmosphere and are inconspicuous and harmoni- to the environment troubled Garrison. “I cannot help ous with their surroundings. Rather they seem obsessed wondering,” he told the regional director in April 1958, with designing monuments to their own inventiveness. “if this is the proper kind of a development to introduce Widely criticized, these buildings are unlike any others in into a National Park—if we are not defeating the very the parks and are creating a hodgepodge where, instead, basic purpose of Park protection and preservation by there should be uniformity.”76 frankly concentrating so much use in one spot.”82 The new Thumbay development did little to con- But while he was troubled about the idea of reserv- vince Butcher—or anyone else—otherwise. In 1957, ing space for concentrated development, Garrison was Superintendent Garrison outlined detailed plans for even more concerned about sprawl. He realized that the Thumbay, known later as Grant Thumb in honor of alternative to concentrated development for meeting the President Ulysses Grant, and finally as Grant Village.77 park’s projected needs for 1966 would mean develop- There were several reasons why NPS managers wanted ment scattered across the park that would actually result the West Thumb development moved to this new site, in more development per se; planners had estimated 1.5 miles south of the existing facilities. First, they that less park space would be used if development were wanted to stop development from encroaching on the concentrated. Furthermore, the site for Thumbay hot springs and pools in the West Thumb area. Second, (hereafter Grant Village), which stretched for two miles they considered the soil and terrain in the West Thumb along Yellowstone Lake, was suitable for construction, area too poor for “large capacity development,” which and, while attractive, not so splendid that it necessarily is what the agency was after. While West Thumb had merited preserving for scenic reasons. The “forest cover been a small development, the new village, Garrison is basically about the same as that on a million or more claimed, would have “provision for about 4,500 visitors acres nearby,” he wrote. For these reasons, Garrison felt in campgrounds, trailer courts and cabins.” Third, the that building Grant Village was, in some ways, the lesser NPS wanted to provide a more protected staging area of two evils.83 Thus, work on Grant Village proceeded. for tourists eager to boat and fish on the lake.78 The development planned for Grant Village As with the Canyon development, park officials would resemble Canyon Village. Garrison called the wanted Thumbay to be an area of concentrated devel- site beautiful, “one of the choice locations scenically opment. In early spring 1957, Superintendent Garrison and recreationally, in the entire Park, and [thus one communicated his approval of a “shopping center” type that] should have appropriate tone and treatment in of arrangement to officials at the Western Office of the over-all development.” Accommodations would Design and Construction (WODC), as it would allow range from free public campgrounds to “more expensive visitors to move around the complex easily on foot.79 He cabins similar to modern motels outside the Park.” No also wanted an NPS structure, instead of a gas station hotels were planned for the area, but a lodge was later as originally planned, to have the strategic location at built. There would also be “three classes of eating services the junction with the main park road. “[T]hese [gas] plus a lunch counter, a general store, a picture shop, a stations are a general source of public information and marina, saddle horses, camping and picnicking grounds, [because] they do not have trained personnel to provide service station, footpaths and saddle horse trails, a visitor informational service,” he wrote, “the Park Service should assembly hall which may be combined with an employee have a strategic location of this nature for the best service recreational room, visitor center with an amphitheater to the park visitors.”80 and auditorium, medical services, post office, ample While Garrison appeared positive about the project public restrooms, public laundry and showers, employee in public, privately, he harbored some concerns. The residences and dormitories, public garage, ranger sta- project would, as Garrison put it, result in significant tions, utility buildings and services, storage space, and changes to the area. For one thing, the site would re- public telephones.”84 quire “considerable alteration to fit it for use, as it [was] The government would provide roads and utilities heavily timbered.” About 80 acres of trees would have for both government and concessioner installations.

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” 147 With these provisions and “no land purchase investment” a park’s natural history to become an important tool for on the part of the concessioner, Garrison felt, there would park preservation.”89 Central to this focus on education be “enough offset to the higher construction costs in and interpretation was the rise of the visitor center, an this isolated location and with the short season to make innovative concept “designed as the hub of each park’s this concessioner investment economically feasible.” interpretive program.”90 If contracts were let for site clearing in 1958, the site would be ready for further government and concessioner development by 1960, Garrison believed.85 However, the Museums and Ranger Stations Merge to opening date was continually postponed—primarily by Form Visitor Centers concessioner financial problems—until 1963, when the first phase of the village was dedicated in the form of a The visitor center was intended to serve as the 383-unit campground, picnic area, and boat launching fulcrum for balancing use and protection in the nation’s ramp.86 Both the harbor and boat launch failed due parks by centralizing use and managing circulation of to poor design, and although constructed, were never visitors. It was also meant to enhance visitor appreciation functional. Subsequent development, both on the part of the park. One Mission 66 publication, Our Heritage, of the government (a visitor center and amphitheater, described the visitor center as “one of the most useful trailer village, and ranger station) and the concessioner, facilities for helping the visitor to see the park and enjoy was accompanied by controversy and financial problems his visit.”91 In its early stages of development, the visitor that continued to thwart the development’s progress. In center was referred to as an “administrative–museum fact, the final result differed significantly from original building,” a “public service building,” or a “public use plans and did not come about until more than three building.” Allaback claimed that the range of names decades after Mission 66 planners first imagined the considered “suggests the Park Service was struggling not development.87 only to combine museum services and administrative Mission 66’s “village” projects in Yellowstone facilities but [also] to develop a new building type that clearly met with mixed success. In fact, Grant Village would supplement old-fashioned museum exhibits with remained a problematic development at least until modern methods of interpretation.”92 1982, when lodging units were finally completed; and Anticipating a problem with the proposed con- the third relocation project—the removal of most of the struction of many of these new administrative–museum development around Old Faithful to the Lower Geyser buildings, park headquarters, and public-use buildings Basin, where it would be called Firehole Village—was across the country, Director Wirth called for uniformity ultimately shelved by a committee of NPS personnel. in building terminology. He wanted all new public-use Historians Barringer, Haines, and Richard Bartlett buildings and administrative–museum buildings to be have contended that the stories of Canyon and Grant called “Visitors Centers.” In a memorandum to NPS Village illustrated the role that concessioner resistance staff, Wirth asked that they use the term “visitor center” played in the questionable achievements of Mission 66 even instead of “park headquarters” when headquarters in Yellowstone National Park.88 But other issues also led were located at major sties of visitor concentration.93 At to the critical reconsideration of Mission 66, especially a design conference two years later, it was noted that the the changes in the NPS’s understanding of its mandate term proved confusing to visitors unfamiliar with the of protection and use, which in the 1960s shifted away new facilities, who might be inclined to associate the from development and toward preservation. term with shopping centers.94 Confusion notwithstand- Before those issues can be examined, it is im- ing, the name stuck and has survived to the present. portant to look at two intertwined and longstanding Mission 66 visitor centers were prime examples of achievements of Mission 66: the rise of the visitor the Park Service Modern architectural style. Hailed by center and the concomitant growth of the education Allaback as “a distinctive new approach to park archi- department—or, as it increasingly came to be known, tecture,” Park Service Modern represented several archi- the Division of Interpretation. As McClelland wrote, tectural ideals: simplicity (most structures were stripped “Education and interpretation took on particular im- of any “overtly decorative or associative elements”); un- portance in Mission 66. . . . For national parks the role obtrusiveness (the buildings maintained low, horizontal of interpretation expanded from the communication of profiles and employed textured concrete, panels of stone

148 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” veneer, painted steel, and glass to be subordinate to the as the basis for their designs, but occasionally came up landscape and to “harmonize” with its surroundings in with the design in-house.103 The architectural firm Hurt a more understated way than rustic architecture had); and Trudell of San Francisco, California, designed the and, efficiency.95 The visitor center’s efficiency lay in its Canyon Visitor Center, while the Grant Village Visitor centrality, in its concentration of functions in one place. Center was a combined effort of the architectural firm Whereas planning in the park villages before Mission 66 Adrian Malone and Associates of Sheridan, Wyoming, had been decentralized, with museums, ranger stations, and the WODC.104 administration buildings, and comfort stations often As the focal point of Canyon’s visitor center, park residing in separate buildings, Mission 66 visitor centers and WODC officials had hoped to secure the original combined these functions under one roof. Serving as a Thomas Moran painting of the Grand Canyon of the Yel- control point for “visitor flow,” visitor centers could serve lowstone that was hanging in the Interior Department’s even unprecedented numbers of tourists efficiently and Washington, D.C., conference room at the time. The well. And, by centralizing use, they would help preserve painting belonged in the visitor center, park officials the park’s fragile areas from “random, destructive pat- thought, “since at Canyon it would have the greatest terns of use.”96 impact upon its viewers.”105 However, the park failed to Between 1957 and 1965, two prototypical Mis- acquire either that Moran or the other acceptable alterna- sion 66 visitor centers were built in Yellowstone: one at tive, a similar canvas displayed at the National Gallery. Canyon Village and one at Grant Village.97 They were Instead, it settled for a copy of the first painting. designed to be open and spacious, so as to accommodate In 1957, the WODC’s apparently garish choice of large numbers of people easily. They were intended to be interior and exterior paint colors for the buildings—in- readily accessed by ramps and other movement-facilitat- cluding the visitor center—at Canyon Village led Super- ing devices. Their simple designs were unapologetically intendent Garrison to question the veracity of Mission modernistic. Designers of the structures embraced the 66’s professed embrace of harmonious design—or in same contemporary, cost-effective materials (glass, con- this case, harmonious coloration. The Canyon Visitor crete, and steel). The Canyon Visitor Center was built Center was constructed using pink aggregate blocks held of colored concrete block, “plyscord” siding, “glu-lam” together with dark pink mortar. In a letter to WODC posts and beams, and a considerable amount of glazing.98 Chief Thomas Vint, Garrison reminded Vint that none The architect of the Grant Village Visitor Center, in fact, of the colors chosen for the Canyon Village buildings had “over[did] it in using masonry block,” according to Jerry been approved by the park, and questioned the wisdom Riddall, chief architect of the WODC. Riddall suggested of their choice: “The colors used on these buildings in the a restudy and “the use of wood siding on gables.”99 Both utility area cause us to wonder if there is a new policy in buildings maintained a low, streamlined profile, with a effect regarding the selection of colors for Park structures. horizontal emphasis. They also exhibited the same philo-

sophical emphasis on creating a “balanced, ‘harmonic’ YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #32767-3 relationship with the environment” as modern architects in the mold of Richard J. Neutra.100 Finally, they both concentrated all public-use functions within one build- ing: restrooms, administration, visitor information, museum exhibit space, and auditorium. Thus, the visitor centers built in Yellowstone under Mission 66 and soon after “not only embod[ied] new park visitor management policies, but also the spirit which looked forward to an efficient Park Service for the modern age.”101 The Canyon and Grant Village visitor centers were designed, and their construction supervised for the most part by private architectural firms, as were many other Mission 66 visitor centers, for reasons of expediency and economics.102 Allaback wrote that these firms most often used preliminary WODC drawings Canyon Visitor Center dedication. 1958.

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” 149 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #147304

Canyon Visitor Center. 1958.

We would like to know if it is still practical to use exte- were working at cross-purposes to the agency-wide goal rior colors which are softer and more harmonious with of “getting visitors familiar with the Visitor Center the surroundings.” Landscape architect Frank Mattson as a logical first stop on their tour of an area.” Beatty found the selections “good colors for a city subdivision. suggested that “Canyon Visitor Center” be written in For use within the park, we believe they are not entirely large letters with “Ranger Station” and “other pertinent appropriate. . . . We believe they should be somewhat information in smaller letters.” He also advised the use darker and the colors held within the soft browns, greens, of either a tally counter or a visitor-count mat to deter- and grey or tan grays.”106 mine visitation load.108 The problems were resolved, and Further emphasis of resistance to Mission 66 may Canyon Visitor Center remained an important part of have been evidenced when, for a period during 1960, the interpretive program in Yellowstone. the Canyon Visitor Center was renamed Canyon Ranger While he did not design the Canyon Visitor Station, “placing emphasis on ranger activities instead Center, one of the principal architects working with of interpretation.” No museum talks were scheduled at the WODC during this period was Cecil John Doty, the center that year, and the audio-visual program was trained in architectural engineering and part of the NPS’s reported to have “seldom functioned due to mechanical architectural staff since the early 1930s, when he worked failures.” While attendance figures at Canyon during the under Herbert Maier at the CCC state parks program. 1959 season had been carefully reported and tabulated In 1936, Doty moved from designing state park to to suggest “heavier attendance than any other visitor national park structures, and in 1954, he became part center,” unofficial attendance figures for the 1960 season of the WODC in San Francisco under Chief Sanford were “disappointingly light.”107 After hearing of these J. Hill and supervising architect Lyle Bennett.109 His developments, Regional Chief of Interpretation M. E. mark on NPS landscapes was a series of visitor centers Beatty sent a terse letter to Garrison, wanting to know throughout the West that exhibited “sensitivity toward why the cost of operations for naturalist services in 1960 location; a compact plan incorporating standard visitor was significantly higher than for 1959, “despite an ap- center elements [i.e., exhibit areas, audio-visual space, parent de-emphasis of naturalist activities,” and why a lobby, an auditorium, and restrooms]; the use of attendance figures were not kept officially. “Without modern materials combined with wood and stone; and proper data,” Beatty wrote, “remedial action is impos- the impression of modesty that comes from a limited sible.” And finally, the point that annoyed Beatty the budget.”110 Doty drew up designs for two visitor centers most: why had the name of the visitor center had been in Yellowstone that were never built: at Mammoth and changed? Beatty charged that the name change, “alone, Madison Junction.111 might well explain the alleged drop in attendance,” and “The Mission 66 visitor center remains today as complained that by instituting the change, park officials the most complete and significant expression of the Park

150 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #38799-1

Canyon Visitor Center. 1958.

Service Modern Style,” wrote Allaback, “and of the plan- Washington branch of the Park Service’s Office of Design ning and design practices developed by the Park Service and Construction until 1961, was a major proponent of during the Mission 66 era.”112 Doty probably would have teamwork between curatorial and educational staff and agreed wholeheartedly. As he put it, designers of a park’s the architectural staff.115 Thus, the surge in interest in visitor center needed to be aware of the importance of creating visitor centers carried with it a wave of activity the center’s effect, including its site and landscaping, on in the museum branch of the NPS.116 the public. In this sense, Doty was carrying forward into The location of a visitor center was also important. the Mission 66 era an important tenet of landscape archi- “Taken out of context, the visitor center had no inherent tecture: just as good landscaping around a park structure value,” Allaback contended, “but placed near a point of could “add” to the building’s reputation, poor landscap- interest, it became indispensable to the curious park visi- ing could just as easily detract from the structure’s effect tor.”117 WODC designers did not always have the final on the public. At a visitor center planning conference, say on a visitor center’s location, but they most certainly Doty warned designers that the “parking area, walks, could influence the decision. They usually chose visitor terraces, and everything in and around the building are center sites in relation to a park’s overall circulation plan part of the Visitor Center ensemble, and are on exhibit “in order to efficiently intercept visitor traffic,” and thus as something constructed by the National Park Service.” did not hesitate to incorporate the widening of park roads “They can be more important than the exhibits them- and the expansion of parking lots into a plan.118 Thus, selves,” he noted.113 according to Allaback, the “criteria for siting Mission At the same time, it was the visitor center’s contents 66 visitor centers . . . differed significantly from the that mattered most. “The overwhelming purpose [of the criteria for siting and designing the rustic park villages centers] was luring people inside,” wrote Allaback.114 and museums of the prewar era.”119 As a result, visitor For this reason, the interior layout and thus general centers were often located in what some critics believed design of a visitor center was largely driven by concerns to be sensitive historic or natural areas. Such siting was about how best to move visitors through the space while rationalized, however, on the basis of visitor edification informing them about the park. Thus, NPS architects and the hope that the “resulting understanding of sites created building “circulation” or “flow” diagrams. To would lead to greater support for preservation.”120 The help them arrive at reasoned conclusions regarding cir- answer to the difficult question of where to locate a visitor culation, park architects were encouraged to meet with center—close to the entrance so as to help visitors plan the interpretation staff of a park, and other museum their park excursions, or at the site of interest to help professionals. Thomas Vint, who remained chief of the visitors interpret a particular significant feature—was

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” 151 not ever provided definitively, but many park interpret- in terminology was reflected in name changes in the ers favored placing visitor centers “right on top of the NPS’s organizational structure. In 1938, the agency’s resource” to allow visitors to “see virtually everything Branch of Research and Education became the Branch from the visitor center.”121 As one park naturalist put it, of Research and Information, only to become the Branch “a visitor center should be ‘in touch’ with the feature it of Interpretation in 1941. By 1954, it was called the interprets.”122 Interpretation Division.126 Such name changes were The Mission 66 visitor center embodied the NPS’s reiterated in Yellowstone, where the Naturalist Depart- response to questions about how best to educate the ment (which took over from the Education Department public about the national parks and the need for their in 1933) became the Naturalist Division in 1942, and continued preservation in the modern age. They also the Interpretive Division in 1955.127 affirmed the idea that the parks were to be used by the The term “interpretation” was chosen because public, predicated as they were on the belief that visitor instead of focusing on the presentation of information centers would instill an appreciation of a park’s natural or on the intensity and rigor of education, it was “an or historical features, thereby enhancing visitor enjoy- educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and ment. Thus, Mission 66’s stance on the importance of relationships through the use of original objects, by first- interpretation was central to its adoption of the visitor hand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than center as its core structure. simply to communicate factual information,” accord- ing to author Freeman Tilden, who in the 1950s wrote several important books on the nation’s parks.128 Tilden Mission 66 and the Change From called interpretation “a voyage of discovery in the field Education to Interpretation of human emotions and intellectual growth.”129 While interpretation was, in effect, an education The decision to make education an integral part of sorts, the NPS opted to disassociate itself from the of Mission 66 was not made entirely by the NPS. The idea of educating the public. The term “education” fell public had asked the agency to include it. When a public out of favor, according to Vick, because “it came to be survey of attitudes concerning the park was conducted too closely associated with formal schooling. Those in April 1955, the need for “more information about involved in the educational work,” she wrote, “did not the sights to be seen, [and] plaques, printed material, want the park visitor to think he was going to school guide maps, lectures, etc.” was second only to the need when he came to a national park.” To associate park for “more facilities for sleeping.”123 One result was the activities with education would, according to one park visitor center; another was the institution of “interpreta- naturalist, “put the kiss of death, as it were, on what we tion” in the parks. were trying to do.”130 Educational programming at Yellowstone had Nor did the term “information” sit well with the changed little during the postwar and Mission 66 periods NPS. While interpretation included information, it went until the 1960s. Vick, for example, documented little much further: “Interpretation is revelation based upon distinction between the 1933 and the 1958 schedules information,” according to Tilden.131 There was a depth of educational programming.124 One reason may have to interpretation that did not exist with the mere impart- been the continuity in leadership: C. Max Bauer, chief ing of information, and it was this depth that Tilden and, naturalist since 1932, was replaced in 1946 by David increasingly, the NPS as a whole, appreciated. The true deLancy Condon, who remained in that position until interpreter, according to Tilden, “[b]esides being ready in 1959. The stability of the tenures of both men likely en- his information and studious in his use of research, . . . sured a strong measure of uniformity during the postwar goes beyond the apparent to the real, beyond a part to a and Mission 66 periods.125 whole, beyond a truth to a more important truth.”132 What changed more significantly during this pe- The “truth” NPS officials wanted visitors to see was riod was the terminology used by the NPS’s Washington, the intangible value of nature. For Tilden, interpretation D.C., offices to refer to educational programming. The was “the primary means by which the National Park term that had evolved from “information” (1919) to Service could generate an understanding of the visible “education” (1925), and then to “naturalist” (1932), and invisible values of the national parks.”133 The “chief finally settled in 1940 on “interpretation.” This change aim of Interpretation is not instruction,” Tilden wrote in

152 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” a discussion of his six principles of interpretation, “but Horace Albright had used in his quite similar program provocation.”134 “Through interpretation, understand- implemented in the 1920s. ing,” Vick quoted the widely known motto, “through This decentralized management structure em- understanding, appreciation; through appreciation, braced “all government activities—interpretive and protection.”135 maintenance as well as protective,” wrote Haines, “with Yellowstone officials put this process of provocation all three branches under the supervision of a district to work to achieve an appreciation of the natural values manager who was, in effect, a ‘little superintendent.’”139 integral to preserving the park. While Vick claimed As Garrison put it, “We delegated to them [the district that the park did not officially revise any of its inter- managers] the authority to run this just like it was a little pretive programming to include this goal of achieving park. They set up their own programs . . . they had their protection through interpretive programs before 1968, own budget, and . . . they selected employees.” The sys- Haines wrote that the “interpretive program developed tem worked “quite well,” according to Garrison; it “put under Mission 66 was conservation oriented, stressing the decision making out where the problems were.”140 wilderness values and ecological relationships wherever Haines agreed that the system had its advantages, “par- possible.”136 Along these lines, Superintendent Garrison ticularly in buildings and utilities maintenance, where planned to introduce a wilderness appreciation theme sending crews from headquarters often meant excessive into the park’s interpretive message at Grant Village. travel.” But, he noted, the system also had its problems: Grant, according to Garrison, “would become the wilder- lower efficiency and insularity.141 As it was, Garrison’s ness take-off point,” with trails leading to Heart Lake, system was abolished for unclear reasons just about the the Witch Creek [Heart Lake] Geyser Basin, upper Yel- time he left in 1963. “I never did know why it was killed,” lowstone Lake, and Flat Mountain Arm. Garrison also Garrison remembered in an interview a decade later. planned for a trail between Lewis Lake and Shoshone “[N]obody had the guts to tell me what was wrong with Lake, and “on into the Bechler river country.” According it except that Connie Wirth . . . said, no.” Apparently, to Garrison, wilderness was a “popular topic of planning” Regional Director Baker told Garrison that the system in the early 1960s, but there were few points of access was “heavy on overhead.”142 in Yellowstone. Grant Village would remedy that. Park The second development McIntyre instigated was visitors would also learn about the importance of and planning for new educational sites at Bridge Bay and need to appreciate wilderness at the Grant Village Visi- Grant Village, as well as for a “Fishing For Fun” program tor Center, where the theme would be “The Wilderness (implemented in 1961). Third, park rangers began to and Ways to Enjoy It.”137 Some of these plans, at least, conduct impromptu winter interpretation activities at came to fruition. the Madison and Old Faithful areas beginning in winter On other fronts, however, there was little sig- 1962–1963, as the number of snowcoaches and snow- nificant movement. When Chief Naturalist Condon mobiles (first allowed into the park in 1955 and 1963, moved to Great Smoky Mountains National Park, he respectively) increased. Finally, two new positions were was replaced by Robert N. McIntyre, who served for established (to be “redefined” in 1968 due to budget three years, and then by John Good, who remained chief constraints), as Mary Meagher became museum curator naturalist for five years. There were significant develop- and Aubrey Haines became park historian.143 But these ments in Yellowstone during McIntyre’s short tenure, but changes, Vick argued, did not affect the actual content they did not alter the status quo in terms of educational of educational programming. programming. First, at Superintendent Garrison’s urging, While Good was chief, several superficial changes the park adopted a district management concept and concomitant with a growing program occurred. For three districts: North, West, and South. Attempts to “run instance, there were increases in the budget and the everything out of headquarters with a Chief Ranger and number of seasonal ranger naturalists hired. The new a Chief Interpreter and a Chief of Maintenance simply educational sites became a reality at Bridge Bay (1964) broke down,” Garrison claimed after he retired from the and Grant Village (1966), and the following publica- NPS. “They were too far apart and [there were] too many tions were introduced: a new ranger manual, Manual of things going on.”138 Garrison followed the model set up General Information on Yellowstone National Park (1963); by Dan Beard in Everglades National Park, with district an in-house document, The Yellowstone Interpreter managers in three districts—the same three districts that (1963); and a commercially printed program brochure

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” 153 that outlined the summer naturalist program and was in 1958—ten years after Rogers’s committee had pro- distributed for free.144 posed the idea—a 15-day limit was imposed on camping at one site, which halved the length of time that had been allowed for several decades.148 Assistant Superintendent The Effect of Mission 66 on Luis Gastellum further proposed a “critical analysis . . . to Yellowstone’s Campgrounds determine if we should set a limit on the total campers we can accommodate at one time.”149 Under the influence The people behind Mission 66 also set out to im- of Mission 66’s philosophy of accommodation, however, prove and expand the park’s campgrounds—a reversal it was decided that the solution was to increase capacity, from the thinking just years before, when park officials especially given the fact that park officials wanted to close had toyed with the idea of curtailing overnight visitation the campground at West Thumb, which had become in the park as a solution to the problem of campground “crowded and worn out.”150 A panel of experts—the overuse. When the increase in visitors after the war had park engineer, assistant superintendent, chief ranger, a measurable impact on the already-deteriorated camp- assistant park naturalist, park landscape architect and dis- grounds, Superintendent Rogers, in 1947, selected a trict ranger—rejected a proposal, scandalous by today’s committee to study the “trend of use, preservation of standards, to build a campground in Hayden Valley. vegetation, and administration and control of camp- The panel found the proposal unfavorable because, first, ground populations.” The committee considered limit- the site could not accommodate enough campsites to ing individual stays to ten nights at any one campsite, and relieve the pressure on established campgrounds, which strongly suggested the “greater use of facilities outside were primarily in the Lake area. Second, the commit- the park rather than continue their extension within the tee felt that the area “because of animal and bird life park.” They even discussed a proposal to “work toward a should be kept free of intensive developments.” Third, program which would place all of the overnight facilities they acknowledged that “the installation of camping outside the park, including camping.”145 developments in this [Hayden Valley] area would literally Most of these recommendations were not acted preclude any withdrawal of such use in the future and upon, however, and by the end of the decade, the overuse actually call for more installations.” Instead, the panel of campgrounds had grown worse. As the tremendous recommended establishing a primitive campground at pressure on campgrounds continued, considerable Pelican Creek and improving the camping possibilities rehabilitation and even some expansion became neces- at Lewis Lake.151 sary, particularly at Old Faithful, Fishing Bridge, and Thus, a primitive campground at Pelican Creek West Thumb. In 1948, for example, Superintendent was built in 1959, and camping opportunities at Lewis Rogers estimated that there was a 40 percent overuse Lake were expanded. In a letter to Superintendent Gar- of campgrounds. “In other words,” he wrote, “where rison, Acting Regional Director M. H. Harvey noted the there was room for 10 people, 14 crowded in.”146 In the “suitability of the terrain and vegetation” at Pelican Creek 1950s, mature lodgepole pine trees in the Fishing Bridge for possibly even a permanent campground. But officials area were cut to prevent a “blow-down” on a scale with also acknowledged that development in the area should the one in 1936, when a child had been killed, several be temporary until approved in the master plan.152 They people had been injured, and automobiles had been also recognized that the addition of overflow camping damaged. Park officials developed plans to close parts at Pelican Creek did not solve the overall crowding is- of the camping area for restoration and to open them sue. In a letter to a dissatisfied visitor, Superintendent once new vegetation had started to grow. When visitors Garrison acknowledged that between lack of funds and complained that the plans constituted spiteful or retribu- the increase in visitation, “overcrowded conditions have tive behavior on the part of the NPS, Regional Director in some instances resulted in unsatisfactory sanitary Baker responded with pleas that they understand the conditions because of our inability to properly police agency’s effort to maintain camping facilities in the park the area.” As he explained, the recent percentage of in- for generations to come.147 crease in campground use—25 percent—far exceeded Park officials employed whatever methods they the percentage of increase in total visitation.153 could to solve the campground crisis without adding to The new campground at Lewis Lake opened on the number of campgrounds or campsites. For example, August 1, 1961, with 100 sites and room to add 100

154 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” more. A new campground at Madison Junction opened expansion program. As Garrison remembered many that same year with 320 sites, and the campground years later, NPS officials at the beginning of Mission 66, at Fishing Bridge had already been expanded to 300 “were still operating under the principle that every visitor sites.154 In 1962, the Indian Creek Campground was that wanted to come to Yellowstone, you’d let in.” “If he further developed with the installation of water pumps wanted to camp,” Garrison said, “you tried to provide a and pit toilets. Garrison, suggested powering the water campground for him.” But, as Garrison remembered, pump and hypo-chlorinator by small gasoline engines rather than electric motors; there was no requirement for We got off of that before very long because it electricity in the area because park policy “preclude[d] became obvious we had to do something in using comfort stations in campgrounds with less than restriction . . . camping, for instance. We built 100 sites.”155 the Madison Junction Campground, rebuilt By 1963, a record number of campers made use it, enlarged it. We built the . . . Grant Village of the park. Camper days—the number of campers in Campground, but it was so obvious that to re- the park on any given day—almost doubled in three ally meet the forward demand, we would end up years, from 450,000 in 1960 to 814,000 in 1963.156 To with a ring of campgrounds around Yellowstone alleviate overcrowding, officials actualized plans for a Lake from Grant Village through to Mary Bay, campground at Bridge Bay, which had been discussed which was about 33 miles, and they’d be full all for decades. In 1935, Superintendent Toll had asked the time.161 Landscape Architect Mattson to draw up plans for a campground and boat dock at Bridge Bay. Toll recog- Thus, the agency was forced once again to re- nized that obtaining a reliable, safe water supply for the evaluate the relative importance of use and preserva- area would be a major undertaking, and thus suggested tion identified in its mandate. As Garrison realized, that the campground “be included in the next ECW pro- the “preservation” side would perish if the scales were gram and also be listed in the six-year program.”157 But tipped too far to the “use” side. The continuation of the the project was put off. Finally, in the early 1960s, park campground expansion program was, as Garrison put employees began dredging the bay for the marina and it, “a perversion of the purpose of the park,” and so of- constructing the multi-use/concessioner building and ficials finally decided to stop increasing camp capacity. the campground loops.158 The Bridge Bay Campground In retrospect, the move to have a campground in every first appeared on the U.S. Department of Interior’s map geyser basin was wrong, according to Garrison. “[W]hy of Yellowstone in 1965. couldn’t we leave just leave one of them alone?” he asked Even campground comfort stations were not be- rhetorically.162 yond the reach of Mission 66 Style dictates. In 1956, Director Wirth sent out a memorandum on the use of “appropriate finishes for comfort stations compatible From Species Protection to Ecological with their environments in the campgrounds.” He sug- Management gested that ceramic tile and paint colors such as pastel shades of pink, orchid, and blue be avoided and replaced The pendulum began to swing toward preservation with “more virile” colors: neutral gray, buff, tan, and in 1963, with the release of the “Wildlife Management in terracotta. He also recommended quarry tile and gray the National Parks,” better known as the “Leopold Re- or ochre ceramic tile to minimize tracking marks.159 The port” —a study of wildlife management issues produced following year, Vint, now chief of the Division of Design by Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall’s Advisory and Construction, notified Superintendent Garrison Board on Wildlife Management, chaired by A. Starker that Wirth now felt “strongly against the use of ceramic Leopold, a zoologist at the University of California at tile in Comfort Stations.” The director was impressed Berkeley.163 According to Brian Kenner, “The Leopold with Formica for wainscot and Marlite wall finish, both Report can be regarded at least partly as a reaction to of which had recently been used at a comfort station at the rejection of Mission 66 philosophy by the interested Cape Hatteras.160 public.”164 Secretary Udall (1961–1969), himself, was By the middle of the 1960s, however, cracks were no fan of Mission 66, and had told Director Wirth so appearing in the synthetic surface of Wirth’s campground soon after taking office.165 With the help of a commit-

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” 155 YNP, PHOTO ARCHIVES, YELL #147315

Black bear leaning on roadside barracade, with ear tag placed by bear researchers. 1965. tee of wildlife experts, including such noted biologists an ecosystem. Since it had become a national park, as Stanley Cain and Ira Gabrielson, Leopold crafted a Yellowstone’s natural features had been “protected” document that, according to historian Paul Schullery, through active manipulation designed to maximize the became “much more influential and more frequently survival of certain species. For example, at various times, invoked in all subsequent management dialogues even park officials had “protected” elk by feeding them, by than the [Yellowstone National Park] Organic Act or the exterminating predators, and by killing elk in an effort to National Park Service Act.”166 According to one recent prevent them from “overpopulating” and “overgrazing” park superintendent, the Leopold report became “a kind their range after those predators had been eliminated. of manifesto” for NPS personnel; it was adopted as of- Before the Leopold Report became national park policy, ficial agency policy.167 park forests were “protected” from fire, considered the The Leopold Report was commissioned in re- enemy of forest health; park rangers attempted to ex- sponse to the public outcry that occurred in the late tinguish all blazes. 1950s and early 1960s in response to the NPS’s culling The Leopold Report made clear that protecting of Yellowstone’s elk herds.168 The report called for ac- particular species at the expense of others was counter- tive ecological management on the part of the NPS in productive and even destructive to preserving natural- an attempt to recreate in the national parks “a vignette ness. Protection of one part of what was really a much of primitive America.” Thus, wilderness values or those larger system of organisms and relationships was not the that would maintain or return the park to “as nearly as way to preserve the ecosystems of which parks them- possible . . . the condition that prevailed when the area selves were really only a part. Already by the late 1950s, was first visited by white man” were to be esteemed above some in the NPS had been thinking that Yellowstone’s values emphasizing enjoyment or use of the park. “The needs might be well-served by a staff ecologist. In 1957, goal, we repeat,” Leopold wrote, “is to maintain or create George Baggley, then regional chief of operations but the mood of wild America . . . but the whole effect can be also former chief ranger in Yellowstone, advocated hiring lost if the parks are overdeveloped for motorized travel.” an ecologist. “I have reached the conclusion,” he wrote “If too many tourists crowd the roadways,” he stressed, the regional director, “that an Ecologist, or a man with “then we should ration the tourists rather than expand ecological training and some park experience, would be the roadways.” “Above all other policies,” Leopold wrote, of more value to the Park than would a pure biologist.” “the maintenance of naturalness should prevail.”169 An ecologist, he concluded, “would have a much broader Maintaining naturalness, Leopold argued, would understanding of the floral and faunal communities than be achieved not by protection per se, or even protec- do most persons trained in general biology.”170 tion of specific species, but by active management of Leopold’s particular contribution to this issue was

156 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” his ability to point out that preservation required not Structures Report be completed. One might read the only recognition and understanding of “the enormous undertones in Baker’s correspondence as reflecting a complexity of ecological communities and the diversity negative attitude toward the proposed Norris Soldier of management procedures required to preserve them,” Station project. In his closing remarks, for example, but also “active manipulation of the plant and animal Baker wrote, “The fact that this has now been tentatively communities.”171 Active manipulation was necessary earmarked for $20,000 should in no way influence your because the Yellowstone ecosystem had already been judgment as to the feasibility of preserving this structure interfered with, resulting in a situation in which pure from historical and architectural viewpoints.”173 protection was no longer desirable or even possible. Because Yellowstone did not have its own historian Thus, active manipulation for the sake of protecting until late 1960, Regional Director Baker requested that certain species was replaced by the notion of active ma- NPS historian Ray H. Mattison “make an evaluation nipulation for the preservation of naturalness. of certain historical buildings in the park and make recommendations for their preservation or disposi- tion.”174 Mattison ascribed the urgency to evaluate the From Natural Preservation to Historic park’s historic structures to two main points: first, the Preservation buildings were deteriorating rapidly—especially after the 1959 earthquake—and measures would need to be Though the Mission 66 years were largely an undertaken quickly to ensure their preservation. Sec- era of tearing down the old to make way for the new, ond, facilities proposed under Mission 66 jeopardized Yellowstone’s historic buildings did attract some atten- several of these older structures. After careful study of tion during this period. However, because Mission 66 the structures and their history, as well as consultations was largely completed by the time the National His- with Chief Naturalist Robert McIntyre and park en- toric Preservation Act became law in 1966, the park’s gineer—and soon to become park historian—Aubrey actions in regard to those structures were not driven Haines, Mattison recommended that the Norris Soldier by legislation. In July 1957, NPS historian Merrill J. Station be “rehabilitated for use in the interpretive sys- Mattes wrote to Superintendent Garrison about po- tem at Yellowstone.” Mattison also recommended that tential historic buildings in the park. Garrison readily several structures at Yancey’s station be preserved or agreed with Mattes’s opinion that the Norris Ranger reconstructed, that the structures at the Lamar Buffalo Station should be considered a historic building and Ranch located at the junction of Rose Creek and the thus receive a degree of consideration and protection in Lamar River be destroyed, but only after a complete the face of development, but proposed further study on photographic record of them had been made, and that Mattes’s two other candidates, the Cottage Hotel and the Cottage Hotel and Mammoth caretaker’s cottage the Yancey Mail Station and Hotel. Regional Opera- be obliterated. He also advocated placing historical tions Chief George Baggley concurred with Garrison markers at the sites of several demolished but important that the Cottage Hotel and the Yancey property were historic structures: McCartney’s cabin, the “Norris block- “marginal . . . and need careful study before the Service house” or original park headquarters, Camp Sheridan, [should commit] to their preservation and maintenance McGuirk’s Medical Springs on the Gardner River, and as historic structures.”172 Though some observers now Baronett’s Bridge.175 believe they should have been preserved, the buildings After he became park historian in late 1960, Aubrey were ultimately removed. Haines evaluated Mattison’s recommendations. Haines In November 1959, Regional Director Howard basically concurred with Mattison’s findings, and asked Baker requested the superintendent’s views on the his- that several other sites be given the same consideration: torical significance of the Norris Soldier Station and also “the site of the civilian cemetery on the hill north of a report on any damage the structure may have suffered Mammoth, the site of the old ‘town’ of Soda Butte, on from the Hebgen Lake earthquake that had occurred the Cooke City road, the wreck of the steamer Zillah in August of that year. Baker wanted assurance that [E. C. Waters] on Stevenson Island, and the Chinaman’s Garrison felt the soldier station had sufficient histori- Garden on the Gardner River.”176 Haines completed his cal significance and structural integrity to be converted own Historic Structures Report for the Norris Soldier into a historical museum, and suggested that a Historic Station in 1961, and in April of that year, officials at the

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” 157 NPS’s Washington, D.C., offices and the agency’s chief Yellowstone headquarters may be far less attractive, or architect commended him for his work. less commodious and far less interesting than the old Fort The question of whether to preserve Fort Yel- which can be made an important historical feature,” he lowstone also arose at this time. In his report, Mattison concluded. Using every tool he had, including a veiled had recommended that only “certain representative type threat, Albright admitted that “as a taxpayer,” he “would structures, such as the old Park Headquarters and one of regard the destruction of the Fort as a massive waste of the non-commissioned officers’ quarters, be preserved.” good Government property, and the building of new He wrote that while it “would be highly desirable to headquarters as giving to Yellowstone largesse that many preserve the buildings of Fort Yellowstone if they were other park areas deserve[d] and need[ed].”180 to be considered on their own merits” —they were after Finally, he was concerned with the bad name the all, in his own words, “one of the best preserved and most NPS would acquire should it be associated with the complete late 19th and early 20th century military estab- demolition of the fort. “I honestly think that . . . the lishments in Region Two” —other factors had entered whole project is unsound from every standpoint and the into the picture. It “is recognized,” he wrote vaguely, Department and the Service can be seriously criticized “that revised landscaping factors in this primarily scenic if it secures money and goes ahead with it. Surely this area will make it impracticable to retain them as a group.” project was not a part of Mission 66, and I would hope Again, he recommended making an architectural record Mission 66 will not be identified with it.” He asked of the buildings before they were destroyed in case no that the agency’s chief historian have a chance to study original plans had survived.177 the matter before the NPS made any definitive move to Whether due to Mattison’s report or not, rumors destroy the fort.181 flew regarding the possible demolition of the fort. When Almost a year later, Director Wirth responded to former park superintendent and former NPS Director Albright’s protest. Wirth admitted that there had been Horace Albright heard these rumors, he fired off a strong serious discussions of removing Fort Yellowstone to letter, softened only by its opening— “My dear Connie,” make room for “more orderly development of the Park he began—to Director Wirth condemning the idea of headquarters and because of their possible weakening as destroying the fort. “This letter of protest may not be a result of the earthquake,” but, he wrote, “I don’t feel in order because it may be based only on rumor,” he that we should get hysterical about it.” The first order of wrote. “On the other hand, it may be in order, but futile importance, he reminded Albright, was employee safety. because there may be no one who will care to consider “[T]he main thing is that we do not want to endanger it valid or important.” He reminded Wirth about the the lives of our employees if the buildings have been fort’s importance as a draw for tourists. “Tear [it] down,” weakened,” he wrote. Furthermore, he added, “we have he warned, “. . . and twenty years from now, perhaps information indicating that the real old Fort Yellowstone sooner, there will be projects developed to rebuild it in of historical significance was removed back in the 20’s whole or in part.” Besides, the Mammoth area, espe- and what we have there now is what might be termed cially, needed all the tourist attractions it could muster, the more modern Fort Yellowstone which was built after he reminded Wirth.178 Seeking to offset the possibility the turn of the century.” Wirth concluded by agreeing that the fort had been damaged during the earthquake that the project would be expensive and that the money of 1959, Albright asserted, “I seriously doubt that the was needed elsewhere, but he did say that they would earthquake damaged the Fort, or that it is unsafe.” Fur- “add to the Mammoth area headquarters such buildings thermore, he reasoned, there “is no more reason to tear as we need to carry on an efficient administration” and down Fort Yellowstone than there is to tear down the that the buildings would be “fit into a scheme that will old San Francisco Mint on the ground that even though allow us at a future date to remove the old Army build- it did not crumble in 1906, it might fall next time an ings if it is found desirable to do so and replace them earthquake comes along.”179 with more modern buildings that fit into a better scheme The style of any replacement architecture also of management.” The only reason to remove the older troubled Albright. Would replacement headquarters “be buildings, however, he reassured Albright, would be if of modern architecture, perhaps entirely out of harmony he thought his employees were in danger from working with what will be left of the Mammoth Hot Springs in unsafe conditions.182 community?” Albright wanted to know. “I fear a new A change that was implemented during this period,

158 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” however, was the move of the Superintendent’s Office war, the park struggled to meet visitor demands. Com- from the Corps of Engineers building to the three-story bined with a growing awareness of the implications of “new” barracks building built in 1909, the present home unplanned development on the natural resources of the of the park’s administration. According to Haines, park, a major planning effort, in the form of Mission 66, “This move allowed grouping of the department heads took place toward the end of this period. In Yellowstone, close to the superintendent, creating a functional unity the program’s emphasis was to move or relocate develop- unknown when staff members were scattered among ment away from significant or fragile areas of the park, several buildings.”183 resulting in the construction of Canyon Village (already In 1960, Albright and others had reason to worry planned, at least in part), the creation of Grant Village, about the destruction of historic structures because, as and an unsuccessful plan for the removal of facilities Albright had noted in his letter to Wirth, the NPS’s at Old Faithful. With these developments came a new “policies with respect to preservation and interpretation” architectural style, Park Service Modern. had not yet been developed.184 Once the agency’s mission Was Yellowstone’s Mission 66 program a success? with respect to the documentation and preservation of Historian Richard A. Bartlett averred that the program historic structures was established in 1966, as part of the “staved off the deterioration that was bringing the parks National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), it became and monuments to the brink of disaster.”187 Historian much easier to argue in favor of preserving Yellowstone’s Paul Schullery has written that the program’s legacy is historic structures. But, as Schullery wrote, on the other complex, and thus defies a simple thumbs-up or thumbs- side of the coin was the fact that with historic preserva- down evaluation. “It did, indeed, upgrade many roads, tion, a new, costly, and often unwieldy element had been bridges, and facilities, and no doubt visitors are now added to the NPS mission: the preservation of “structures better served,” he wrote, “but the program is routinely no longer common elsewhere—from winding, low- criticized for simply accommodating more traffic rather speed auto trails to romanticized rustic architecture.”185 than trying to control or limit it.” He also noted that In essence, with the advent of the NHPA, the nation’s environmentalists condemn the “biggest monuments parks also became “museums for really big objects.” As of Mission 66, Canyon Village and Grant Village.”188 Schullery noted, this added responsibility has proven to According to historian Aubrey Haines, the program’s be an expensive challenge for parks such as Yellowstone. greatest accomplishments were improved access and the “While some hold that even the architectural and engi- provision of administrative and employee facilities.” “But neering legacy of the National Park Service itself must in the matter of providing visitor accommodations,” he be preserved and protected in the parks, others worry wrote, “there was no real gain.” For Haines, the unfin- that we risk turning too much of Yellowstone into sites ished components of Mission 66 perhaps “saved [the for stockpiling neat old buildings, bridges, culverts, and park] from unnecessary scarring.”189 other human constructions that were created in the first Most have concurred, however, that the program place only to enable us to enjoy other resources here.” was not perceived as a great success at its time. As Haines “The buildings in Yellowstone are both interesting and wrote, “Mission 66 passed quietly out of the picture,” historic,” Schullery reminded his readers, “but they were and was supplanted with a program called “Road to the a side effect of the park’s purpose. Now they have become Future,” that de-emphasized large scale construction a purpose in themselves, and one of the great challenges projects and promoted such long-range objectives as facing future managers will be coming to terms with “[p]reserving the scenic and scientific grandeur of our that purpose.”186 Nation, presenting its history, providing healthful out- door recreation for the enjoyment of our people, [and] working with others to provide the best possible relation- Conclusion ship of human beings to their total environment.”190 Ac- cording to seasonal park ranger Robin Smith, who wrote The impact of World War II, with its immediate a historical study of Grant Village, “Mission 66 lost its restriction on building and the lack of an adequate labor cachet halfway through the program.” By “1959–1960,” force, resulted in the neglect of buildings and structures Smith noted, “the NPS began to see what with all the in Yellowstone and across the national park system. roads and pillows they had added they still were not When attendance figures soared after the end of the winning the battle to provide adequate facilities. To the

“A Hodgepodge Where, Instead, There Should Be Uniformity” 159 contrary, the situation was getting worse.”191 ment would actually protect the landscape by concentrat- The public apparently did not perceive the pro- ing use in areas less important for wilderness or esthetic gram as a success, either. Indeed, throughout the Mis- values, Mission 66 was intended, among other things, sion 66 era, NPS officials had to counter claims that to be a tool for helping protect the nation’s parks.195 A the large-scale development program was hurting parks park’s environment would also be preserved as the public more than it was helping them. In February 1959, for became more informed about the need for preserving example, Director Wirth sent a memorandum to all field such areas; hence, the program’s push for interpretation. offices asking them to expend greater effort “to present But the nation’s, and eventually, many agency officials’ the Mission 66 program to the public in its true light.” evaluation of the program was essentially that it was anti- “Specifically,” he wrote, “it is necessary that we use preservation and pro-development. According to Kenner, every available means to counter the misapprehension “the Service most certainly recognized that constructing that Mission 66 is somehow damaging the Parks or that facilities to keep up with visitation was no longer fea- it is inimical to the purpose for which the Parks were sible, and probably also felt the need for an adjustment created.” He called it “of the utmost importance that in policy.”196 Even Mission 66 Steering Committee this concept [that Mission 66 was a program to carry Chairman Lon Garrison “came to realize that, contrary out the basic purpose of the National Park Service] be to his original thinking, the NPS could not continue to firmly fixed in the minds of the American public.” Wirth expand accommodations for Park visitors.”197 The park’s asked the field offices “to develop more and better feature natural features and wilderness could not be adequately articles for publication designed to place the Mission 66 preserved if every visitor was accommodated. program in its proper perspective.” After reading the While Yellowstone National Park has always boast- memorandum, Wirth wrote, officials were to destroy ed an eclectic architectural blend (the Prairie-Style Child it, in an effort, perhaps, to deny that the program had House at Mammoth Hot Springs, the typical army-style ever been in trouble.192 buildings, the Anglo-Japanese Engineer’s Office, the Art Indeed, Mission 66 was not popular with those Moderne Mammoth Hot Springs Hotel, the Colonial who wanted the park used less and preserved more. Revival Lake Hotel, and the former Canyon Hotel), its In the end, the nation and the NPS came to see that rustic influences outweighed these non-rustic buildings “a continuing effort to accommodate all visitors in the for many years. With the introduction of the modern traditional manner would eventually be destructive of buildings—along with modern bridges, bypasses, and park values.”193 Schullery, for example, documented the Old Faithful cloverleaf overpass—brought by Mis- public sentiment in the late 1960s as being overwhelm- sion 66, Yellowstone began to take on another feeling ingly in favor of limiting public activity in the nation’s and appearance. Along with these new developments parks to a level consistent with maintaining wilderness was a change in the park’s approach to communicating values in the park. Almost all who answered an informal knowledge and instilling appreciation—from education survey in 1968 regarding how national parks should be to interpretation—and later, a change in the its wildlife run, “agreed that we should ‘determine what human management philosophy—from species protector to influences are causing wildlife problems, and develop ecosystem manager—as well as its approach to his- park management programs designed to offset man’s toric structures. In 1965, the park stood poised for the adverse impact.’”194 challenges ahead, including threats to its ecology, its Based in the modern belief that “good” develop- wilderness, and its historic buildings.

160 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Appendix A

Government-Built Buildings Constructed in Yellowstone National Park 1879–1973

The following list of government-built buildings in Yellowstone National Park, 1879–1973, is not exhaustive, but meant to provide additional information for the purposes of this publication and reflect the research results available at press time.

Year Bldg. No. Structure Extant

Yes No 1879 • Blockhouse headquarters building at top of Capitol Hill in Mammoth X Hot Springs • Earth-roofed log house and other improvements between Beehive Geyser X and Castle Geyser in Upper Geyser Basin. Was used as home and office by civilian superintendents. With some added buildings, this became the Upper Geyser Basin Soldier Station in 1886. 1880 • Mammoth Hot Springs barn, blacksmith shop, and bathhouse X • Harry Yount’s earth-roofed cabin upon the terrace south of the confluence X of the East Fork of the Yellowstone (Lamar) and Soda Butte rivers • Mail station built at Norris by superintendent X • Mail station built by John Goff and George Marshall at Forks of the X Firehole River 1881 • Mammoth Hot Springs hennery, near barn X • Queen’s Laundry, built near the confluence of the Firehole River and Nez X Perce Creek 1882 • Firehole Basin summer headquarters, coal house, and blacksmith shop X 1883 • Mammoth blacksmith shop, cow house, storehouse, and carpenter shop X 1884 • Norris civilian administration building X 1886 • Camp Sheridan (temporary army buildings in Mammoth) X (all) Army No. 1 • Barracks Army No. 2 • Warehouse Army No. 3 • Guardhouse Army No. 4 • Troop stables Army No. 5 • Quartermaster stables Army No. 6 • Camp Sheridan Hospital • Lower Geyser Basin Soldier Station • Upper Geyser Basin Soldier Station • Grand Canyon Soldier Station • Riverside Soldier Station • Soda Butte Soldier Station

Appendices 161 Year Bldg. No. Structure Extant Yes No 1887 Camp Sheridan (temporary army buildings in Mammoth) • Officers quarters X • Magazine X • Fort Yellowstone No. 51 residence X 51 • Lake Outlet Soldier Station X 1891 The following are at Fort Yellowstone: X (all) 8 • Army post headquarters (now residence) 9 • Guardhouse (now residence) 10 • Quartermaster storehouse (now residence) 11 • Commissary (now residence) 12 • Granary (now residence) 24 • Bakery (now residence) 29 • Troop workshop (now paint shop) 30 • Non-commissioned officers’ residence (now residence) 31 • Non-commissioned officers’ residence (now residence) 32 • Non-commissioned officers’ residence (now residence) 33 • Non-commissioned officers’ residence (now residence) 1892 6 • Officers’ duplex quarters X 7 • Officers’ duplex quarters X • Snake River (Polecat Creek) station X • West Thumb station X • Riverside station X 1893 4 • Officers’ duplex quarters X 5 • Officers’ duplex quarters X 1894 14 • Hospital surgeon’s residence X • Fort Yellowstone hospital X • Residence for hospital personnel (Mammoth) X 1895 49 • Fort Yellowstone residence—U.S. Commissioner X • Mud Geyser Soldier Station X 1897 26 • Fort Yellowstone barracks (Mammoth) X • Norris Soldier Station (replaced 1883 station) X • Thumb Bay station X 1898 22 • Quartermaster shops (now plumbing shop) X 1899 27 • Cavalry barracks (now offices) X • Lake Soldier Station X 1900 Snowshoe cabins in existence (based on the Yellowstone National Park X (all) and Forest Reserve USGS map for 1900, found in Superintendent’s Annual Reports vol. 5, 1895–1900, in Yellowstone National Park Library, Heritage and Research Center, Gardiner, Montana) • Astringent Creek Cabin • Bartlett Cabin • Boundary Creek Cabin • Coulter Creek Cabin • Hellroaring Creek Cabin • Lewis River Cabin • Park Point (on the lake) Cabin • Proposition Cabin

162 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Year Bldg. No. Structure Extant Yes No • Trappers Creek Cabin X • Trout Creek Cabin X • Willow Creek Cabin X 1901 • Tower Soldier Station X 1902 40 • Fort Yellowstone residence (Chittenden House, now offices) X • Mammoth—Water-powered electric plant (powerhouse) X • Mammoth—Reservoir X • Snake River Soldier Station X 1903 39 • Fort Yellowstone, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Office (Pagoda) X 43 • Fort Yellowstone residence X 44 • Fort Yellowstone garage X 104 • North Entrance residence—previously a checking station X • Mammoth weather station X • Gardiner Soldier Station X • West Thumb—U.S. Fisheries Commission building X 1904 • West Thumb Soldier Station X • Sylvan Pass Soldier Station X • Soda Butte Soldier Station X 1905 35 • Fort Yellowstone Post Exchange (canteen) X 1906 • Lamar Buffalo Ranch X 1907 • Tower Soldier Station X 1908 111 • Norris Soldier Station (replaced burned station) X 1909 1 • Fort Yellowstone bachelor officers’ quarters (now Visitor Center) X 2 • Fort Yellowstone double captains’ quarters X 3 • Fort Yellowstone field officers’ quarters X 16 • Fort Yellowstone hospital annex X 34 • Fort Yellowstone cavalry stable (now supply center) X 36 • Fort Yellowstone double cavalry barracks (now administration building) X 37 • Fort Yellowstone blacksmith shop X 38 • Fort Yellowstone cavalry stable (now offices) X 50 • Fort Yellowstone quarters/duplex X 56 • Fort Yellowstone powerhouse X 1910 231 • Bechler Soldier Station X • Gallatin Soldier Station X 1911 232 • Bechler Soldier Station horse barn X 13 • Fort Yellowstone guardhouse (jail) X 1912 234 • Buffalo Lake Patrol Cabin X 334 • Commissioner’s barn (now garage) X • Crevice Mountain station (replaced in 1921) X 1913 17 • Fort Yellowstone Chapel X • Lake fish hatchery, quarters and mess X 1914 • Snake River Soldier Station (replaced burned one) X • Bureau of Fisheries residence on Columbine Creek (bungalow and barn) X 1915 218 • Aster Creek Patrol Cabin X • Lamar Buffalo Ranch log home 227 • Cabin Creek Patrol Cabin (replaced by 719, 1974) X

Appendices 163 Year Bldg. No. Structure Extant Yes No 1915 • Dunraven Pass checking station X (cont.) 219 • Harebell Patrol Cabin X • Madison Junction checking station X 291 • Thorofare Ranger Station (burned in 1937 and rebuilt) X 292 • Thorofare horse barn X • West Entrance checking station X 1916 346 • North Entrance checking station (burned and rebuilt in the late 1930s) X 271 • Lower Slough Creek Cabin X • Automobile camps: Mammoth, Canyon, Upper Geyser Basin, Lake X 1917 226 • Park Point Patrol Cabin (replaced 1900 cabin, burned 1988) X 284 • Pelican Creek Patrol Cabin (reconstructed 1935) X 1920 • Frost Lake Snowshoe Cabin X 266 • Hellroaring Ranger Station X 267 • Hellroaring horse barn X • Northeast Entrance Patrol Cabin X 138 • South Riverside Patrol Cabin X 241 • Tower Ranger Station X 291 • Thorofare Ranger Station X 1921 • Lamar Buffalo Ranch blacksmith shop and stable X • Canyon Ranger Station X 261 • Crevice Mountain Ranger Station (replaced 1912) X 221 • East Entrance Ranger Station X 229 • Fox Creek Patrol Cabin X 191 • Lake Ranger Station X • Mt. Washburn fire lookout (replaced in 1940) X 252 • Northeast Entrance horse barn X 253 • Northeast Entrance quarters X • Old Faithful Ranger Station X 160 • Old Faithful fire cache X 161 • Old Faithful residence X • Upper Slough Creek hay ranch X • Automobile camps: Mammoth and Fishing Bridge (Lake Outlet) X 1922 106 • Lamar Buffalo Ranch residence X • Northeast Entrance Ranger Station X • Fish hatchery at Fish Lake (Trout Lake) X • Automobile camps: Lake and Old Faithful X 1923 • Automobile camps (comfort stations): Fishing Bridge, Lake, Tower Fall, X West Thumb 1924 278 • Cache Creek Patrol Cabin X • East Entrance checking station (replaced in 1932) X 300 • Heart Lake Patrol Cabin X • West Entrance checking station X 1925 • Apollinaris Spring flagstones X 265 • Blacktail Creek Patrol Cabin X 235 • Boundary Creek Patrol Cabin X 184 • Canyon fire cache X

164 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Year Bldg. No. Structure Extant Yes No 185 • Canyon horse barn X 189 • Canyon comfort station—old campground X 315 • Canyon comfort station—old campground X 316 • Canyon comfort station—old campground X 318–320 • Canyon comfort station—new campground X 146 • Dailey Creek Cabin (U.S. Forest Service cabin until 1929) X 209 • Duck Lake pumphouse X 293 • Duck Lake pumphouse X 294 • Duck Lake pumphouse X 101 • North Entrance Ranger Station X 103 • North Entrance horse barn X 511–516 • Old Faithful comfort stations X 139 • West Gallatin garage X 140 • West Gallatin horse barn X 141 • West Gallatin Ranger Station X 201 • West Thumb Ranger Station X • West Thumb Campground X 1926 • Lower Slough Creek storehouse and bunkhouse 1927 • Lamar Buffalo Ranch horse barn X 349 • Crystal Spring Cabin (moved to Three Rivers) X 350 • Fawn Pass Patrol Cabin X 360 • Mary Mountain Patrol Cabin X 151 • Old Faithful post office (razed in 1973) X 149 • Shoshone Lake Patrol Cabin X 1928 220 • Cascade Creek Patrol Cabin X 301 • Fishing Bridge Ranger Station X 311* • Lewis River Road Camp quarters X 312 • Lewis River Road Camp messhouse X 58 • Mammoth bathhouse used as storage shed X • Madison bunkhouse 112 • Norris residence X 113 • Norris bunkhouse X 114 • Norris barn X 169–173 • Old Faithful Campground comfort stations X 176 • Old Faithful Museum X 179 • Old Faithful comfort station at amphitheater X • South Entrance Ranger Station (burned 1940, replaced 1941) X 203 • West Thumb bunkhouse X 204* • West Thumb messhouse X 1929 107 • Lamar Buffalo Ranch bunkhouse X 121 • Madison Junction Museum X 441 • West Entrance bunkhouse, formerly building #143 X 142 • West Gallatin messhouse X 144 • West Gallatin bunkhouse X 1930 303 • Fishing Bridge residence X 304–307 • Fishing Bridge comfort stations—campground X

Appendices 165 Year Bldg. No. Structure Extant Yes No 1930 192–194 • Lake bunkhouses X (cont.) 195 • Lake horse barn X 197–198 • Lake comfort stations X 725 • Lake office X 726 • Lake Fish Hatchery X 732 • Lake Fish Hatchery garage X 733 • Lake Fish Hatchery bunkhouse X 66 • Mammoth incinerator (abandoned 1962) X 279 • Lower Miller Creek or Calfee Creek Patrol Cabin X 214 • Mt. Sheridan fire lookout X 115 • Norris Museum X 116 • Norris Museum comfort station X 162 • Old Faithful residence originally constructed as messhouse X 163 • Old Faithful bunkhouse X 164 • Old Faithful dormitory X 168 • Old Faithful cabin X 174 • Old Faithful residence X 175 • Old Faithful apartment X 147 • Teepee Creek Patrol Cabin X 238 • Tower Junction bunkhouse X 242 • Tower Junction messhouse X 1931 94 • Apollinaris Spring comfort station X 225 • East Entrance checking station X 222 • East Entrance Road Camp messhouse X 223 • East Entrance Road Camp bunkhouse X 224 • East Entrance Road Camp barn converted to bunkhouse X 283 • Fern Lake Patrol Cabin X 302 • Fishing Bridge Museum X 727 • Lake Fish Hatchery spring house X 728 • Lake Fish Hatchery spring house X 730 • Lake Fish Hatchery residence X 731 • Lake Fish Hatchery residence X 117 • Mt. Holmes fire lookout X 239 • Tower Junction garage X 240 • Tower Junction fire cache X 245 • Tower Junction horse barn X 470 • Upper Blacktail Cabin X 280 • Upper Miller Creek Patrol Cabin X 204* • West Thumb horse barn X 205–208 • West Thumb comfort stations (X— X 207 only) 1932 729 • Lake Fish Hatchery residence X 63 • Mammoth chlorination house X 65 • Mammoth residence X 469 • Upper Blacktail barn X 133 • West Entrance Ranger Station X

166 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Year Bldg. No. Structure Extant Yes No • Fishing Bridge amphitheater X • Old Faithful amphitheater X 1933 228 • Trail Creek Patrol Cabin X 243 • Trail Creek barn X 1934 • Antelope Canyon buffalo corral X 237 • Buffalo Plateau Patrol Cabin X 347 • Bunsen Peak fire lookout X 281 • Cold Creek Patrol Cabin X 282 • Upper Lamar Patrol Cabin X • Madison Amphitheater X • Mammoth Amphitheater X 178 • Old Faithful bunkhouse X 699 • Snake River fire lookout X 212 • South Entrance horse barn X 215 • South Entrance fire cache X 902 • Trout Creek Hatchery, old Fish and Wildlife bldg. X 348 • West Yellowstone fire lookout X • Promontory fire lookout X 1935 233 • Bechler pumphouse X 148 • Cougar Creek Patrol Cabin X 262 • Crevice Mountain horse barn X 296 • Duck Lake Cabin X 704 • Lake shop and storage bldg. X 62 • Mammoth chlorination house X 251 • Northeast Entrance Ranger Station X 254 • Northeast Entrance checking station X 256 • Northeast Entrance shed X 200 • West Thumb powerhouse X • West Thumb amphitheater X 1936 264 • Blacktail Creek horse barn X 324–327 • Fishing Bridge comfort stations—campground X 190 • Lake fire cache X 273 • Lamar Buffalo Ranch garage (snowplow/generator storage) X 70 • Mammoth apartment X 78 • Mammoth storage shed X 272 • Slough Creek, lower washhouse (Elk Tongue cabin) X 250 • Tower Fall comfort station (replaced in 1975 with #249) X 1937 108 • Lamar Buffalo Ranch residence X 109 • Lamar Buffalo Ranch horse barn X 23 • Mammoth vehicular repair shop X 52 • Mammoth shed X 55 • Mammoth chlorination house X 75–77 • Mammoth garages X 84 • Mammoth residence X 1000 • Mammoth post office X 346 • North Entrance checking station (rebuilt due to fire) X

Appendices 167 Year Bldg. No. Structure Extant Yes No 1937 855 • Observation Peak fire lookout X (cont.) 724 • Pelican Cone fire lookout X 99 • Stephens Creek garage X 102 • Stephens Creek residence X

1938 736 • Clear Creek cabin—used by Fish & Wildlife fish trap attendant (replaced X an earlier cabin built between 1913–1925 that collapsed under heavy snowfall in winter 1937–1938) X 199 • Lake powerhouse X 126 • Madison residence X 59–60 • Mammoth Campground comfort stations X 80 • Mammoth residence X 81 • Mammoth residence X 97 • Mammoth magazine X 98 • Mammoth magazine X 1939 72–74 • Mammoth Campground comfort stations X 79 • Mammoth garage X 82 • Mammoth residence X 83 • Mammoth residence X 85 • Mammoth residence X 86 • Mammoth residence X 87 • Mammoth residence X 290 • Mt. Washburn fire lookout X 159 • Old Faithful powerhouse X 213 • South Entrance checking station X 1940 323 • Canyon messhouse X 734 • Lake boathouse X 88 • Mammoth residence X 89 • Mammoth residence X 523 • Old Faithful utility bldg. X 954 • Peale Island residence X 1941 322 • Canyon powerhouse X 952 • Grebe Lake hatchery X 288 • Lake pumphouse X 735 • Lake washhouse X 737 • Lake storage shed X 122* • Old Faithful office—moved in from Madison Junction X 211 • South Entrance Ranger Station—rebuilt after fire X 901 • Trout Lake residence, old Fish & Wildlife Bldg. X 1942 686 • South Entrance garage X 1944 152 • Nez Perce Creek Patrol Cabin X 1945 122* • Madison Junction bunkhouse X 123 • Madison Junction messhouse X 1946 129 • West Entrance residence X 1947 351 • Canyon bunkhouse X 330 • Mammoth residence X 332 • Mammoth residence X 333 • Mammoth garage X 168 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Year Bldg. No. Structure Extant Yes No 417 • Purple Mountain fire lookout X 1948 95 • Mammoth residence X 216 • South Entrance bunkhouse X 1949 196 • Lake cabin at incinerator site X 258 • Old Faithful apartment X 368 • Old Faithful apartment house X 217 • South Entrance permit booth X 1950 268 • Lake messhouse X 269 • Lake bunkhouse X 130 • West Entrance residence X 1951 352–355 • Old Faithful Campground comfort stations X 1952 356–358 • Old Faithful Campground comfort stations X 1953 359 • Old Faithful Campground comfort stations X 361 • Old Faithful Campground comfort stations X 236 • South Entrance residence (originally a messhouse converted in 1962 to X #690) 1955 721 • Lake pumphouse X 362–366 • Old Faithful Campground comfort stations X 435–438 • West Entrance checking station X 439 • West Entrance Visitor Center X 440 • West Entrance pumphouse X 1956 821 • Canyon pumphouse X 846–854 • Canyon Campground comfort stations X 1957 801 • Canyon residence X 802 • Canyon dormitory X 803 • Canyon utility bldg. X 804 • Canyon apartment house X 805 • Canyon apartment house X 806 • Canyon washhouse—employees’ trailer court X 807 • Canyon pumphouse X 808 • Canyon chlorination house X 846–854 • Canyon Campground (new) comfort station X 741–754 • Fishing Bridge Campground comfort station X 691 • South Entrance bunkhouse X 1958 822 • Canyon Visitor Center X 825 • Canyon Ranger Station—campground X 951 • Divide Mountain fire lookout X 371–375 • Mammoth residences X 607 • West Thumb bunkhouse X 1959 755 • Fishing Bridge Ranger Station—campground X 706 • Lake washhouse and comfort station X 709 • Lake apartment house X 336–344 • Mammoth residences (X— X 339) 522 • Old Faithful washhouse X 1960 809 • Canyon pumphouse X 702 • Lake horse barn X 703 • Lake utility bldg. X Appendices 169 Year Bldg. No. Structure Extant Yes No 1960 707 • Lake dormitory X (cont.) 708 • Lake residence X 710 • Lake apartment house X 953 • Lewis Lake pumphouse X 418 • Madison apartment house X 419 • Madison mess hall/dormitory X 471–479 • Madison Campground comfort stations X 480–483 • Madison pumphouses X 369 • Mammoth washhouse—employee trailer court X 376–385 • Mammoth residences X 401 • Norris residence X 517–521 • Old Faithful residences X 524 • Old Faithful shed X 443 • West Entrance pumphouse X 1961 793 • East Entrance residence X 794 • East Entrance residence X • Fishing Bridge Campground expansion X 608–618 • Grant Village comfort stations X • Lewis Lake Campground X 420–425 • Madison Campground comfort stations X 426 • Madison Ranger Station—campground X 427 • Madison utility bldg. X 386–389 • Mammoth “Transa-home” residences X 392 • Mammoth apartment house X 393 • Mammoth apartment house X 394 • Mammoth residence X 395 • Mammoth residence X 390 • North Entrance residence—“Transa-home” X 391 • North Entrance residence—“Transa-home” X 247 • Northeast Entrance residence—“Transa-home” X 248 • Northeast Entrance residence—“Transa-home” X 1962 463 • Bechler pump- and powerhouse X 661–668 • Bridge Bay comfort stations X 669 • Bridge Bay pumphouse X 670 • Bridge Bay Ranger Station X 671 • Bridge Bay pumphouse X 619–624 • Grant Village comfort stations X 625 • Grant Village Ranger Station X 626 • Grant Village chlorination house X 627–628 • Grant Village control houses X 93 • Indian Creek pumphouse X 711 • Lake apartment house X 712 • Lake residence X 713 • Lake hospital X 714 • Lake dormitory X 396–398 • Mammoth sheds X 399 • Incinerator X 299 • Mt. Washburn radio equipment room X 170 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Year Bldg. No. Structure Extant Yes No 402–405 • Norris Campground comfort stations X 1963 672 • Bridge Bay multi-use building X 860–867 • Canyon comfort stations—campground X 860–867 • Fishing Bridge comfort stations—trailer court X 705 • Lake pumphouse X 484 • Madison washhouse—Employee Trailer House X 550 • Mammoth residence X 551–555 • Mammoth residences X 556 • Mammoth School X 557 • Mammoth Clinic X 406 • Norris chlorination house X 230 • Pebble Creek chlorination house X 131 • West Entrance storage (burned 1970) X 1964 673 • Bridge Bay sales bldg. X 674 • Bridge Bay pumphouse X 311* • Fishing Bridge administration bldg. at trailer court X 629 • Grant Village apartment house X 630 • Grant Village washhouse—trailer court X 631–632 • Grant Village comfort stations X 715 • Lake residence—“Transa-home” X 716 • Lake residence—“Transa-home” X 738 • Lake incinerator bldg. X 537–540 • Lamar Buffalo Ranch—“Transa-home” X 558–562 • Mammoth residences X 1965 563–567 • Mammoth residences X 1971 444 • West Entrance wash/shower building (replaced No. 131, which burned in X 1970) 1973 717 • Shoshone Lake Patrol Cabin (west end of lake) X 718 • Shoshone Lake Patrol Cabin (east side of lake) X *Note: Building Nos. 122, 204, and 311 are each listed twice here. At press time, it is unclear whether such dual building numbers are the result of structures being moved within the park, or the use of multiple numbering systems.

The following sources provided the above information (it should be noted that dates often conflict, partly due to the disparity in the notation of either the construction start date and the construction completion date):

Battle, David G. Fort Yellowstone: Historic Structures Report. Denver, Colo.: National Park Service, 1972. This source provided information on Camp Sheridan and Fort Yellowstone.

“Building and Utility List, 1995.” The existence of these government buildings was determined by this list which is in no way exhaustive, completely accurate, or current.

Haines, Aubrey, and Verne Andrews, “Register of Buildings, Yellowstone National Park, March 1959.” file “D-3423- Buildings (Other including building reports) 1957–1962,” box D-158, Yellowstone National Park Archives, Heritage and Research Center, Gardiner, Montana.

“Register of Buildings, Yellowstone National Park.” September 1964, file “D-3415-Buildings (General) 1963–64,” box D-159, Yellowstone National Park Archives, Heritage and Research Center, Gardiner, Montana.

Appendices 171 Appendix B

Government-Built Buildings Removed

CANYON Bldg. No. 222 Messhouse 1968 Bldg. No. 180 Cascade Creek pumphouse Bldg. No. 223 Bunkhouse 1968 (new utility area) Bldg. No. 224 Old barn/bunkhouse 1968 Bldg. No. 181 Ranger station and quarters 1965 Bldg. No. 225 Checking station 1968 Bldg. No. 182 Chlorination house behind Haynes Bldg. No. 183 Garage at ranger station 1965 FISHING BRIDGE Bldg. No. 186 Bunkhouse at incinerator Bldg. No. 304 Comfort station 1965 Bldg. No. 187 Cascade Creek pumphouses A, B, & Bldg. No. 305 Comfort station 1965 C for (rams and gasoline engine for Bldg. No. 306 Comfort station 1965 pumping) 1968 Bldg. No. 307 Comfort station 1965 Bldg. No. 188 Storage for dynamite Bldg. No. 328 Pumphouse—housekeeping area Bldg. No. 189 Comfort station 1965 Bldg. No. 329 Pumphouse Bldg. No. 315 Comfort station 1965 Bldg. No. 316 Comfort station LEWIS RIVER ROAD Bldg. No. 318 Comfort station 1965 Bldg. No. 311 Bunkhouse Bldg. No. 319 Comfort station 1964 Bldg. No. 312 Messhouse and quarters 1961 Bldg. No. 320 Comfort station 1964 Bldg. No. 313 Chlorination house MADISON JUNCTION Bldg. No. 122 Bunkhouse Unnumbered bldgs. Bldg. No. 123 Messhouse and cook’s quarters 1978 • 23 single-room shacks and tent frames in new Canyon Bldg. No. 124 Comfort station Utility area. The structures were given to the park Bldg. No. 125 Comfort station by the Yellowstone Park Company in 1947. They Bldg. No. 126 Residence 1965 provided needed housing after World War II, but were being replaced by Mission 66 development. MAMMOTH HOT SPRINGS Bldg. No. 15 Post hospital-apartment house (built CUB CREEK in 1893) 1959 Bldg. No. 230 Patrol cabin 1965 Bldg. No. 18 Hospital 1964 Bldg. No. 21 Warehouse: plumbing/heating Unnumbered bldg. equipment 1959 • The log road camp building at Lake Eleanor, Bldg. No. 26 Army barracks/warehouse 1962 abandoned in the 1930s, was dismantled and hauled Bldg. No. 41 Quarters/residence 1959 to borrow pit for burning in 1958. Bldg. No. 42 Storage: road equipment 1965 Bldg. No. 43 Quarters/residence 1967 DUNRAVEN PASS Bldg. No. 44 Garage (employees’) 1967 Bldg. No. 260 Patrol cabin and another “relic” from Bldg. No. 45 Storagefor road material/garage 1965 the road camp that occupied the Bldg. No. 47 Employees’ two-car garage 1956 site—both had been abandoned for a Bldg. No. 50 Quarters/duplex residence 1966 number of years. 1958 Bldg. No. 51 Quarters/residence 1960 Bldg. No. 53 Quarters/residence 1959 EAST ENTRANCE Bldg. No. 54 Quarters/residence 1959 Bldg. No. 221 Ranger station 1966 Bldg. No. 57 Public laundry

172 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Bldg. No. 58 Public shower same time) 1968 Bldg. No. 63 Chlorination house Bldg. No. 255 Shed (burned same time) 1968 Bldg. No. 64 Chlorination house Bldg. No. 65 Bunkhouse for incinerator attendant OLD FAITHFUL 1966 Bldg. No. 151 Public bathhouse/vehicle storage Bldg. No. 66 Incinerator for garbage disposal 1963 Bldg. No. 160 Fire cache (scheduled for removal by Bldg. No. 67 Gasoline and oil house 1966 Dec. 1969) Bldg. No. 68 Hook and ladder storage house 1963 Bldg. No. 161 Ranger station and quarters Bldg. No. 69 Quarters at Mammoth water intake Bldg. No. 162 Messhouse and quarters 1969 Bldg. No. 88 Quarters/residence Bldg. No. 164 Dormitory 1969 Bldg. No. 90 Barn/automotive storage 1958 Bldg. No. 165 Quarters east of No. 174 1961 Bldg. No. 91 Storage shed 1958 Bldg. No. 166 Horse barn 1969 Bldg. No. 92 Storage shed built before 1890 for use Bldg. No. 174 Residence 1969 as troop barracks. At the time it Bldg. No. 175 Apartment building burned in 1958, it was used for a Bldg. No. 176 Museum (scheduled for removal by warehouse. 1958 Dec. 1969) Bldg. No. 93 Storage shed (built circa 1890 to serve Bldg. No. 177 Incinerator/storage as Army messhall) 1958 Bldg. No. 178 Bunkhouse (scheduled for removal by Bldg. No. 97 Explosive magazine storage Dec. 1969) Bldg. No. 335 Garage and coal storage for Bldg. 41 Bldg. No. 511 Comfort station in tourist cabin area 1968 Unnumbered bldgs. Bldg. No. 512 Comfort station in tourist cabin area • 9 former CCC buildings on site of employee trailer 1968 development. Sold and removed in 1958. Bldg. No. 513 Comfort station in tourist cabin area • 6 seasonal ranger cabins on site of apartment building 1968 scheduled to be completed in 1960 were sold and Bldg. No. 514 Comfort station in tourist cabin area removed from the park. The cabins had been given to 1968 park in 1947 by the Yellowstone Park Company, which Bldg. No. 515 Comfort station in tourist cabin area considered them “worn out.” 1968 • Coal shed behind Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, Bldg. No. 516 Comfort station in tourist cabin area and 40, removed in 1958. The building served two 1968 sets of quarters but became redundant after the park converted to oil fuel. Unnumbered bldgs. • CCC washhouse in newly developed employees’ trailer NORRIS area was removed to make way for liquefied petroleum Bldg. No. 119 Storage shed 1965 storage tank installation—removed in 1958. Bldg. No. 120 Storage shed 1965 • Gasoline power plant shelter in the CCC area was Bldg. No. 127 Storage shed 1965 proposed for removal to Lewis Lake campground for Bldg. No. 128 Oil house 1968 use as water pumphouse at the new development on the lake shore. NORTH ENTRANCE Bldg. No. 103 Horse barn 1965 SNAKE RIVER Bldg. No. 104 Checking station/quarters 1937 Bldg. No. 699 Fire lookout 1968 Bldg. No. 244 Checking station SOUTH ENTRANCE NORTHEAST ENTRANCE Bldg. No. 213 Checking station (building removed Bldg. No. 252 Horse barn (burned in winter of 1967 from boundary line to just north of or 1968) 1968 ranger station when the road was Bldg. No. 253 Old ranger station/messhouse (burned widened to four lanes in 1949.)

Appendices 173 Bldg. No. 217 Checking station bldg./kiosk 1989 Bldg. No. 210 Bunkhouse at incinerator 1988 Bldg. No. 293 Water pumphouse (Duck Lake) TOWER FALL Bldg. No. 294 Water pumping station (Duck Lake) Bldg. No. 249 Comfort station (campground) Bldg. No. 295 Sewer pumphouse (campground) Bldg. No. 250 Comfort station near store 1975 1975 Bldg. No. 296 Bunkhouse (“Duck Inn,” Duck Lake) TROUT LAKE (scheduled for removal by Dec. 1969) Bldg. No. 901 Fish hatchery 1968 Bldg. No. 297 Incinerator 1968 Bldg. No. 902 Fish hatchery 1968 Some of the information regarding the removal of WEST ENTRANCE buildings during the 1950s–1960s period came from Bldg. No. 131 Cabin/storage (Riverside) 1975 documents stored in the Yellowstone National Park Bldg. No. 132 Riverside ranger station Archives, Heritage and Research Center, Gardiner, Bldg. No. 134 Checking station Montana, in box D-158, file “D-3415 Buildings Bldg. No. 136 Pumphouse 1974 (General) 1959–60,” and box D-160, file “D-34 Bldg. No. 137 Barn 1968 Buildings (other than concession and historical) Construction, Maint., and Disposal 1969.” Information WEST GALLATIN for most building removal dates was provided by the Bldg. No. 139 Garage 1968 1995 “Building and Utility List.” Bldg. No. 140 Barn 1968 Bldg. No. 141 Ranger station 1968 Memorandum to Regional Director from Superintendent Bldg. No. 142 Messhouse (Bacon Rind Road Camp) Lemuel Garrison, January 23, 1959. Memorandum to Bldg. No. 143 Bunkhouse (Bacon Rind Road Camp) Frank Elliot from Aubrey Haines, September 7, 1960. 1968 Memorandum to District Maintenance Supervisors Bldg. No. 144 Old barn (Bacon Rind Road Camp) North-South-West from the Chief of Park Maintenance (no date). WEST THUMB Bldg. No. 209 Water pumphouse (Duck Lake) (scheduled for removal by Dec. 1969)

174 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Notes

PREFACE (Spring 2003): 2–13; and Paul Schullery and Lee Whittlesey, Myth and History in the Creation of Yellowstone National Park 1. Major, Fifth Cavalry, Superintendent, Letter to the (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003). Secretary of the Interior, December 14, 1908, document 3. “The Original Yellowstone Park Act,” in Cramton, #8249, item 29, Yellowstone National Park Archives. Early History of Yellowstone National Park, Appendix A, 76. 2. From the Yellowstone National Park Organic Act, 4. Ibid. “An act to set apart a certain Tract of Land lying near the 5. Ibid. Head-waters of the Yellowstone River as a public Park,” March 6. Ibid. 1, 1872, 42nd Cong., 2nd Sess., as given in Appendix A of 7. Haines, vol. 2, 448–449. Louis Cramton, Early History of Yellowstone National Park 8. Ibid., 449–450. and Its Relation to National Park Policies (Washington, D.C.: 9. Nathaniel P. Langford to the Secretary of the Interior Government Printing Office, 1932), 76. [C. Delano], May 20, 1872, as quoted in Haines, vol. 1, 180, 3. From the National Park Service Act, “An Act to and Cramton, Early History of Yellowstone National Park, 38. Establish a National Park Service, and for Other Purposes,” 10. Ibid. 64th Cong., 1st Sess., H.R. 15522. 11. Ferdinand V. Hayden, Letter, in H. Ex. Doc. 75, 45th Congress, 2nd Session, as quoted in Cramton, Early History of Yellowstone National Park, 37. 12. Chittenden, The Yellowstone National Park, 108. HAPTER C 1 13. Ibid. 1. Philetus W. Norris, The Calumet of the Coteau (Phila- 14. Cramton, Early History of Yellowstone National delphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1883), 190. Norris attributed Park, 38. this stanza to a poem he wrote in 1878, while trying to secure 15. Nathaniel P. Langford, Annual Report of the Super- the first appropriations for Yellowstone National Park.. intendent of the Yellowstone National Park to the Secretary of the 2. Several good accounts of the park delve into the Interior for 1872 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing reasons why the park was set aside and the process involved. Office, 1873), 4, hereafter Annual Report for [year]. See for example, Louis Cramton, Early History of Yellow- 16. Langford, Annual Report for 1872, 4. stone National Park and Its Relation to National Park Policies 17. W. E. Strong, A Trip to the Yellowstone National (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1932); Park in July, August, and September, 1875 (Washington, D.C., Hiram Martin Chittenden, The Yellowstone National Park: 1876), 92–93, as quoted in Haines, vol. 1, 208. Historical and Descriptive, 5th ed. (Cincinnati: The Robert 18. William Ludlow, Report of a Reconnaissance from Clarke Company, 1905); Aubrey L. Haines, The Yellowstone Carroll, Montana Territory, on the Upper Missouri to the Yel- Story: A History of Our First National Park, revised ed. (Niwot, lowstone National Park, and Return, Made in the Summer of Colo.: University Press of Colorado, 1996), vol. 1 [hereafter 1875 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1876), Haines, vol. 1 or 2]; Paul Schullery, Searching For Yellowstone: 26, as cited in Haines, vol. 1, 200. Ecology and Wonder in the Last Wilderness (Boston: Houghton 19. Langford, Annual Report for 1872, 4. Mifflin Company, 1997); Paul Schullery and Lee Whittlesey, 20. He visited the park only twice, once during the “Yellowstone’s Creation Myth: Can We Live with Our Own summer of 1872, and once to evict squatters in 1874. Haines, Legends?” Montana: The Magazine of Western History 53(1) vol. 1, 212.

Notes to Chapter 1 175 21. Haines wrote that the two visits by Langford and his plan in his Annual Report for 1877, 843. “perhaps a visit by David Folsom to the Park following his 55 Norris, Annual Report for 1877, 843. appointment as assistant superintendent in 1873, was the 56 Norris, Annual Report for 1878, 896–897. extent of ‘on site’ management” (Ibid.). 57 Norris, Annual Report for 1879, 20. 22. Cramton, Early History of Yellowstone National 58 Ibid., 21. Park, 39. 59. Norris, Annual Report for 1880, 26. 23. Ibid., 40. 60. Norris, Annual Report for 1877, 843, and Annual 24. Ludlow, Report of a Reconnaissance, 26. Report for 1880, 15. 25. Ibid., 38. 61. Park appropriations were increased to $15,000 in 26. Bozeman Avant Courier (Bozeman, Mont.), Aug. 1880 (Norris, Annual Report for 1880, 34). 20, 1875, as quoted in Haines, vol. 1, 204–205. 62. Norris, Annual Report for 1880, 50. 27. Chittenden, The Yellowstone National Park, 108; 63. Ibid. Haines, vol. 1, 214; Chittenden, The Yellowstone National 64. Norris, Annual Report for 1881, 27, 62–63. Park, 108. 65. Norris, Annual Report for 1880, 20, 18–19, 7. 28. Langford, Annual Report for 1872, 3. 66. Norris, Annual Report for 1880, 35. 29. Haines, vol. 1, 214. 67. Ibid., 35. 30. Ibid. 68. Norris, Annual Report for 1877, 840. 31. Langford, Annual Report for 1872, 3. 69. Ibid., 842. 32. Haines, vol. 2, 450. 70. Norris, Annual Report for 1878, 981–983. 33. Ibid. 71. Norris, Annual Report for 1879, 10. 34. Chittenden, The Yellowstone National Park, 109. 72. Norris, Annual Report for 1880, 7, 36. 35. Ibid.; Lee H. Whittlesey, Yellowstone Place Names 73. Norris, Annual Report for 1881, 7. (Helena, Mont.: Montana Historical Society Press, 1988), 74. Norris found utensils, weapons, and other imple- 113. ments near the Indian-built game driveways leading into the 36. See Norris’s Annual Report for 1880, 51–52, and his canyons of the Clark’s Fork of the Yellowstone River and Annual Report for 1881, 75. Crandall Creek. One stone vessel found in the upper Madi- 37. Norris, Annual Report for 1877, 844. son Canyon was eleven inches in diameter and ten inches in 38. Mary Shivers Culpin, personal communication to height; others were found in a burned area at the upper end editor, August 10, 2005. of Pleasant Valley, at the head of Soda Butte Creek, and in an 39. Norris, Annual Report for 1878, 992. apparent ancient campsite on the eroded banks of Blacktail 40. Haines, vol. 2, 450. Deer Creek. Implements and arrowheads were found in vari- 41. Norris, Annual Report for 1879, 9. ous areas of the park. Norris found the recently constructed 42. Haines, vol. 1 (1977 ed.), 242. fortified camp (from 1877) of the Nez Perce to be of interest, 43. Yellowstone National Park, The State of the Park as well as a corral just to the east of Mary’s Lake, another corral (Mammoth Hot Springs, Wyo.: National Park Service, 1999), and breastworks between Mud Volcano and the Yellowstone 1- 4. River, and others near Pelican and Cache creeks (Norris, An- 44. Norris, Annual Report for 1877, 841. nual Report for 1881, 36–38). 45. Norris, Annual Report for 1878, 985 75. Norris, Annual Report for 1881, 32–47. 46. Norris, Annual Report for 1879, 13. 76. Ibid., 31. 47. Ibid., 20. 77. Norris, Annual Report for 1877, 844. 48. Ibid., 13. 78. Ibid., 845. 49. See Norris, Annual Report for 1878, 993, and Annual 79. For a complete study of the road building projects Report for 1880, 51–52. undertaken by Norris and subsequent superintendents, see 50. Norris, Annual Report for 1878, 992. Mary Shivers Culpin, The History of the Construction of the 51. Norris, Annual Report for 1877, 837. Road System in Yellowstone National Park, 1872–1966, vol. 52. Ibid., 843. 1 of Historic Resource Study (Selections for the Division of 53. See the Rules and Regulations in Norris, Annual Cultural Resources, Rocky Mountain Region, National Park Report for 1878, 993. Service, 1994). 54. Norris, Annual Report for 1879, 21; Norris laid out 80. Norris, Annual Report for 1878, 986–987.

176 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” 81. Norris, Annual Report for 1879, 3–4. Philetus W. of the People:” A History of Concession Development in Yellow- Norris to the Secretary of Interior Carl Schurz, October 1, stone National Park, 1872–1966 (Yellowstone National Park, 1879, microcopies of records of the National Archives, no. Wyo.: National Park Service/Yellowstone Center for Resources, 62, roll 1, Yellowstone National Park Archives [hereafter YCR-CR-2003-01), 9. YNPA]. 2. Richard A. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged 82. Ibid., 4. Norris described the fence as having “posts (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1985), 235. sustained at an angle of some 60 degrees by smaller posts or 3. Ibid. legs through holes near the top, surmounted and faced by 4. Hiram M. Chittenden, The Yellowstone National poles pinned or spiked horizontally upon them.” Park, 5th ed. (Cincinnati: The Robert Clarke Company, 83. Ibid., 5. 1905), 109. 84. Ibid.; Norris to Schurz, Oct. 1, 1879, microcopies 5. Aubrey L. Haines, The Yellowstone Story: A History of of records of the National Archives, no. 62, roll 1, YNPA. Our First National Park, revised ed. (Niwot, Colo.: University 85. Norris, Annual Report for 1879, 4, 6, 9. Press of Colorado, 1996), vol. 2, 450–451, [hereafter Haines, 86. Norris, Annual Report for 1880, 4, 36–37. vol. 1 or 2]. 87. Ibid. 6. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 235– 88. Haines, vol. 1, 249. 236. 89. Aubrey L. Haines, Yellowstone Place Names: Mir- 7. Chittenden, The Yellowstone National Park, 109. rors of History (Niwot, Colo.: University Press of Colorado, 8. Patrick H. Conger, Report of the Superintendent of the 1996), 138. Yellowstone National Park to the Secretary of the Interior 1882, 90. Norris, Annual Report for 1881, 69. 9, hereafter Annual Report for [year]. 91. Norris, The Calumet of the Coteau, 252. 9. Conger, Annual Report for 1882, 8; “Congress Pro- 92. Lon Johnson, “Queen’s Laundry Bathhouse,” Na- poses to Check the Yellowstone National Park Grab,” The tional Register of Historic Places Registration Form, February American Field, January 20, 1883. These reports by Generals 1, 2001, Yellowstone Center for Resources [hereafter YCR], Sheridan and Sackett were also directed at the 1882 lease 5; W.W. Wylie, The Yellowstone National Park, or the Great of large areas in the park to the Yellowstone National Park American Wonderland (Kansas City, Mo.: Ramsey, Millett & Improvement Company. Hudson, 1882), 26. 10. Louis Cramton, Early History of Yellowstone National 93. Johnson, “Queen’s Laundry Bathhouse.” Park and Its Relation to National Park Policies (Washington, 94. Johnson, “Queen’s Laundry Bathhouse,” 4. D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1932), 60. 95. Aubrey Haines to Chief Park Naturalist, Memo- 11. Haines, vol. 1, 268. randum, March 17, 1964, in Queen’s Bathhouse Laundry, 12. Ibid. vertical files, YNPL. 13. “Mr. Vest’s Victory,” Forest and Stream (March 8, 96. Norris, Annual Report for 1877, 840. 1883). Sundry Civil Bill for March 3, 1883, U.S. Stat. at 97. Norris, Annual Report for 1879, 7, 16. Large, Vol. 22, 626. 98. Norris, Annual Report for 1880, 14–15. 14. Haines, vol. 1, 292. 99. Norris, Annual Report for 1879, 7, 16. 15. As quoted in Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness 100. Norris, Annual Report for 1881, 12, 68–70. Besieged, 242. 101. Norris, Annual Report for 1879, 30. 16. Haines, vol. 1, 293. 102. Norris, Annual Report for 1880, 14–15. 17. H. M. Teller to Superintendent of the Yellowstone 103. Ibid., 20. National Park [Robert E. Carpenter], September 29, 1884, 104. Ibid., 20. document #1, letter box 1, item 1, Yellowstone National Park 105. Ibid., 24. Archives [hereafter YNPA]; Secretary H. M. Teller to Mr. P. 106. Norris, Annual Report for 1881, 25–26. H. Conger, July 14, 1883, document #85, letter box 1, item 107. Ibid., 74. 1, YNPA. 108. Haines, vol. 2, 449. 18. Haines, vol. 1, 299–300. 19. Acting Secretary M. L. Joslyn to the Superintendent of the Yellowstone National Park [Robert E. Carpenter], Oc- CHAPTER 2 tober 12, 1884, document #7, letter box 1, item 1, YNPA. 1. Mary Shivers Culpin, “For the Benefit and Enjoyment 20. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 238;

Notes to Chapter 2 177 Joslyn to Superintendent, October 12, 1884. 44. Patrick H. Conger to Secretary of the Interior 21. William Chambers, Jr., to Mr. Patrick H. Conger, [Henry M. Teller], March 7, 1883, document #164, letter March 20, 1884, document #1340, letter box 5, item 9, box 1, item 1, YNPA. YNPA. 45. Conger, Annual Report for 1883, 3–4, 6. 22. Lee H. Whittlesey, “The First National Park In- 46. Haines, vol. 1, 291. terpreter: G. L. Henderson in Yellowstone, 1882–1902,” 47. Ibid. Montana the Magazine of Western History 46(1) (Spring 1996): 48. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 243. 26–41. 49. Haines, vol. 1, 305. 23. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 240. 50. P. H. Conger to the Secretary of the Interior, Janu- For more information on Henderson, see Whittlesey, “The ary 5, 1884, microcopies of records in the National Archives, First National Park Interpreter.” no. 62, roll 2, YNPA. 24. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 240. 51. Haines, vol. 1, 314. 25. Ibid., 241–242. 52. Conger, Annual Report for 1882, 4, 5, 6. For more 26. Ibid, 238; Chittenden, The Yellowstone National details on road work during this period and for all other peri- Park, 113. ods, see Mary Shivers Culpin, The History of the Construction 27. Conger, Annual Report for 1883, 5. of the Road System in Yellowstone National Park, 1872–1966, 28. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 237– vol. 1 of Historic Resource Study (Selections for the Division 238. of Cultural Resources, Rocky Mountain Region, National 29. Haines, vol. 1, 294. Park Service, 1994). 30. James H. Dean to Maj. P. H. Conger, Supt., July 31, 53. Haines, vol. 1, 262–263. 1883, document #1368, letter box 5, item 9, YNPA. 54. Conger, Annual Report for 1882, 3. 31. E. I. Fish to Major Conger, May 12 [1884? See 55. Ibid., 6–7. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 252, note 17], 56. Ibid., 7. document #1420, letter box 5, item 9, YNPA. 57. Ibid. 32. James H. Dean to Maj. P. H. Conger, Supt. Park, 58. Conger, Annual Report for 1883, 3. August 26, 1884, document #1355, letter box 5, item 9, 59. Ibid., 5, 6. YNPA. 60. Conger, Annual Report for 1882, 8. 33. Conger, Annual Report for 1883, 7. 61. Secretary of the Interior Henry M. Teller to Mr. P. 34. James H. Dean to Maj. P. H. Conger, July 31, H. Conger, July 14, 1883, document #85, letter box 1, item 1883. 1, YNPA. 35. Acting Secretary M. L. Joslyn to P. H. Conger, 62. Conger, Annual Report for 1883, 5. August 3, 1883, document #153, letter box 1, item 1, and Act- 63. M. L. Joslyn, Acting Secretary of the Interior, to ing Secretary M. L. Joslyn to P. H. Conger, March 24, 1884, Superintendent of the Yellowstone National Park [Robert E. document #160, letter box 1, item 1, both in YNPA. Carpenter], October 30, 1884, document #30, letter box 1, 36. Secretary of the Interior Henry M. Teller to the item 1, YNPA. Superintendent of the Yellowstone National Park [Patrick 64. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 238. H. Conger], January 15, 1883, document #162, letter box 65. Haines, vol. 1, 300. 1, item 1, YNPA. 66. Conger, as quoted in Aubrey L. Haines, Charles 37. Chittenden, The Yellowstone National Park, 112. S. Pope, and Erwin N. Thompson, “Norris Soldier Station, 38. Conger, Annual Report for 1883, 3. Yellowstone National Park: Historic Structures Report,” Sept. 39. William Chambers to Maj. P. H. Conger, November 1969, 8, vertical files, YNPL. 22, 1883, document #1345, letter box 5, item 9, YNPA. 67. Haines, vol. 1, 300, and M. L. Joslyn to Superin- 40. E. I. Fish to Major Conger, May 12, [1884?]. tendent, October 30, 1884. 41. Haines, vol. 1, 264. For a full account of all issues 68. Livingston Enterprise, July 5, 1884, as quoted in and events related to the history of concessions in Yellowstone, Haines et al., “Norris Soldier Station,” 8. see Culpin, “For the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People.” 69. Apparently Robert Carpenter, Conger’s replace- 42. General Philip H. Sheridan, as quoted in Haines, ment, wrote to the Interior Department asking for permission vol. 1, 263. and funding to build three cabins for “the comfort of the As- 43. Cramton, Early History of Yellowstone, 42. sistant Superintendents”: “one at the Upper Geyser Basin, one

178 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” near Marshall’s Hotel and the third at Soda Butte.” In a return 87. Arnold Hague to Senator George Vest, December letter to Carpenter, Joslyn wrote: “A letter was addressed to the 28, 1883, folder “Records Relating to Yellowstone National Superintendent [Conger] April 18, 1884, approving the plan Park,” box 63, entry 4[?], record group 57, National Archives. [Conger’s plan to build “a sufficient number of cabins, at such Copy in folder “History—Boundaries,” Marcy Culpin’s files, points as they might be required for the use of the assistants”]. Historian’s Office, Yellowstone Heritage and Research Center, The Department has not since been advised whether any of the Yellowstone National Park, Montana. buildings contemplated in the correspondence referred to were 88. John W. Powell to the Secretary of the Interior, May ever erected” (Joslyn to Superintendent, October 30, 1884). 9, 1885, microcopies of records in the National Archives, no. 70. P. H. Conger to Lt. Dan Kingman, November 7, 62, roll 5, YNPA. 1883, microcopies of records in the National Archives, no. 89. Powell to the Secretary, May 9, 1885. 62, roll 2, YNPA. 90. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 244. 71. Lt. Dan Kingman to P. H. Conger, November 19, 91. David W. Wear, Annual Report for 1885, 3. 1883, microcopies of records in the National Archives, no. 92. Weekly (Livingston) Enterprise, Livingston, Mont., 62, roll 2, YNPA. June 1885, as quoted in Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness 72. P. H. Conger to Secretary of the Interior, December Besieged, 244. 2, 1883, microcopies of records in the National Archives, no. 93. From Laws Appertaining to the Yellowstone National 62, roll 2, YNPA. Park as quoted in Haines, vol. 1, 312. 73. Secretary of the Interior Henry M. Teller to P. H. 94. J. W. Weimer to the Hon. Supt. N. Park [P. H. Conger, April 18, 1884, document #26, letter box 1, item Conger], August 29, 1884, document #1585, letter box 5, 1, YNPA. item 9, YNPA. 74. Secretary of the Interior [Henry M. Teller] to P. H. 95. Haines, vol. 1, 313. Conger, Superintendent of the Yellowstone National Park, 96. “The New Park Superintendent,” Livingston Enter- April 29, 1882, document #112, letter box 1, item 1, and prise (Livingston, Mont.), June 6, 1885, 3. H. L. Muldrow, First Assistant Secretary of the Interior to 97. [Editorial], Livingston Enterprise (Livingston, the Superintendent of the Yellowstone National Park [David Mont.), May 30, 1885, 2. W. Wear], February 18, 1886, document #110, letter box 1, 98. From a series of letters by David Wear to Secretary item 1, both in YNPA. of the Interior Lucius Lamar, in July and September 1885, 75. Conger, Annual Report for 1882, 6. as quoted in Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 244 76. “Report on the National Park,” February 4, 1884, and 254 (note 37). Livingston Daily Enterprise, 1. 99. Wear, Annual Report for 1885, 3. 77. M. L. Joslyn, Acting Secretary of the Interior to P. 100. L. Q. C. Lamar to D. W. Wear, August 26, 1885, H. Conger, Superintendent National Park, August 3, 1883, document #3, letter box 1, item 1, YNPA. document #153, letter box 1, item 1, YNPA. 101. Haines, vol. 1, 320. 78. “Major Conger strenuously denies. . .,” February 4, 102. Ibid. 1884, Daily Enterprise (Livingston, Mont.), 2. 103. Livingston Enterprise (Livingston, Mont.), Novem- 79. Haines, vol. 2, 451. ber 7, 1885, as quoted in Haines, vol. 1, 321. 80. M. L. Joslyn to Superintendent, October 30, 104. Wear, Annual Report for 1885, 3, 4. 1884. 105. Ibid., 4. 81. Chittenden, The Yellowstone National Park, 113. 106. Henry Page to Secretary of the Interior, August 30, 82. See Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 1885; D. W. Wear to the Secretary of the Interior, December 243–244, and Haines, vol. 1, 315–318. 10, 1885, microcopies of records in the National Archives, 83. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 243. no. 63, roll 3, YNPA. 84. Acting Secretary M. L. Joslyn to Superintendent of 107. R. E. Carpenter to Secretary of the Interior, Janu- the Yellowstone National Park [Robert Carpenter], November ary 15, 1885, microcopies of records in the National Archives, 6, 1884, document #156, letter box 1, item 1, YNPA. no. 62, roll 4, YNPA. 85. Haines, vol. 2, 452. 108. Wear, Annual Report for 1885, 3, 4. 86. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 244; 109. Ibid., 4. Senator George Vest to Secretary of the Interior Lucius Lamar, 110. Ibid., 5. April 14, 1885, as quoted in Bartlett, 244. 111. W. Hallett Phillips to Secretary of the Interior,

Notes to Chapter 2 179 December 12, 1885, microcopies of records in the National Scribner’s Magazine 35 (May 1904): 527. Archives, no. 63, roll 3, YNPA. 2. Secretary of the Interior to Secretary of War, August 112. Livingston Enterprise (Livingston, Mont.), August 6, 1886, microcopies of records in the National Archives, no. 29, 1885, as quoted in Haines, vol. 1, 322. 62, roll 6; Lt. Gen. P. H. Sheridan to Secretary of War, August 113. Haines, vol. 1, 323; also see Bartlett, Yellowstone: 9, 1886, microcopies of records in the National Archives, no. A Wilderness Besieged, 247–248. 62, roll 3, both in Yellowstone National Park Archives [here- 114. “An unextinguished campfire,” Livingston Enter- after YNPA ]. For good accounts of this period, see H. Duane prise (Livingston, Mont.), August 29, 1885, 3; Haines, vol. Hampton, How the U.S. Cavalry Saved Our National Parks 1, 321. (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1971); Aubrey 115. “An unextinguished campfire,” Livingston Enter- L. Haines, The Yellowstone Story: A History of Our First National prise (Livingston, Mont.), August 29, 1885, 3. Park, revised ed. (Niwot, Colo.: University Press of Colorado, 116. “Noticed in the Park,” Livingston Enterprise (Liv- 1996), vol. 2, chapter 12 [hereafter Haines, vol. 1 or 2]; and ingston, Mont.), September 19, 1885, 1. Richard A. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged (Tucson: 117. Ibid. University of Arizona Press, 1985), chapter 9. 118. Haines, vol. 2, 4. 3. Captain Moses Harris, Report of the Superintendent 119. Haines, vol. 1, 324–325. of the Yellowstone National Park to the Secretary of the Interior, 120. “Delegate Toole Returns,” Livingston Enterprise 1889, 11, hereafter Annual Report for [year]. (Livingston, Mont.), August 14, 1885, 2. 4. Haines, vol. 2, 4. 121. A. B. Freeze to Secretary of the Interior L. Lamar, 5. Ibid., 453. March 29, 1886, microcopies of records in the National Ar- 6. Hampton, How the U.S. Cavalry Saved Our National chives, no. 62, roll 5, YNPA; Haines, vol. 2, 58. Parks, 94. Harris, Annual Report for 1888, 3. 122. Wear, Annual Report for 1885, 5. 7. As quoted in Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness 123. “Mr. Hague on the Park,” Forest and Stream (Feb- Besieged, 259. ruary 25, 1896). More information regarding efforts toward 8. Harris, Annual Report for 1887, 14. the park’s enlargement can be found in Mary Shivers Culpin, 9. Haines, vol. 2, 454. For a detailed discussion of these “Yellowstone and Its Borders: A Significant Influence Toward issues, see Haines, vol. 2, chapter 1, 19–21. the Creation of the First Forest Reserve,” The Origins of the 10. Ibid., 454–455. National Forests (Durham, North Carolina: Forest History 11. Ibid., 455. Society, 1992), 276–287. 12. David G. Battle and Erwin N. Thompson, Fort 124. Haines, vol. 1, 323. Yellowstone: Historic Structures Report (Denver: National Park 125. Many historians have speculated about this con- Service, 1972), 14. nection between the protection of Yellowstone and the deg- 13. Ibid. radation of Niagara Falls. Landscape architect Ethan Carr, for 14. Haines, vol. 2, 457. example, refers to Niagara Falls’s “descent into a commercial- 15. Arnold Hague to H. Muldrow, September 21, ized attraction.” Ethan Carr, Wilderness By Design: Landscape 1886, microcopies of records in the National Archives, no. Architecture and the National Park Service (Lincoln: University 62, roll 3, YNPA. of Nebraska Press, 1998), 42. 16. H. Muldrow to Captain Moses Harris, September 126. House Report 1076, Forty-ninth Congress, first 30, 1886, microcopies of records in the National Archives, session, as quoted in Cramton, Early History of Yellowstone, no. 62, roll 3, YNPA. 44. 17. Captain Moses Harris to Acting Secretary of the 127. First Assistant Secretary of the Interior to Superin- Interior H. Muldrow, October 8, 1886, microcopies of records tendent of Yellowstone National Park, March 6, 1886; Acting in the National Archives, no. 62, roll 3, YNPA. Secretary of the Interior to Superintendent of Yellowstone 18. Lee Whittlesey, personal communication, Novem- National Park, June 8, 1886, both microcopies of records in ber 18, 2003. the National Archives, no. 62, roll 6, YNPA. 19. Haines, vol. 2, 6. Harris, Annual Report for 1887, 11, 12. Captain Moses Harris to Adjutant General, [?] 3, 1886, consolidated file “Fort Sheridan–Camp Sheridan,” box 1026, CHAPTER 3 Record Group [hereafter RG] 92, National Archives; Capt. 1. Arnold Hague, “The Yellowstone National Park,” Moses Harris, “Inspection Report of Camp Sheridan made the

180 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” 5th day of August, 1887, by Captain Moses Harris, 1st Cav- son, Fort Yellowstone, 9. alry,” box 117, entry 464, RG 94, National Archives. Copies 39. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 9. of both in folder “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, 40. R. Laurie Simmons and Thomas H. Simmons, 1892–1900,” Marcy Culpin’s files [hereafter Culpin’s files], National Historic Landmark Nomination: Fort Yellowstone, Historian’s Office, Yellowstone Heritage and Research Center, Draft, May 10, 2000, 5. Yellowstone National Park, Montana [hereafter HRC]. 41. Simmons and Simmons, National Historic Land- 20. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 5. mark Nomination, 5. 21. Memorandum from Moses Harris, May 18, 1887, 42. George Anderson, Annual Report for 1892, 5, and box 117, entry 464, RG 94, National Archives. Copy in folder Captain George Anderson to Adjutant General, August 13, “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, 1892–1900,” 1892, box 117, entry 464, RG 94, National Archives. Copy Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. in folder “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, 22. Edwin C. Mason, Acting Inspector General, to 1892–1900,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. See also the Adjutant General, September 8, 1887, box 117, entry Assistant Adjutant General to Captain George Anderson, June 464, RG 94, National Archives. Copy in folder “Fort Yel- 16, 1892; Captain George Anderson to Adjutant General, lowstone—General Correspondence, 1892–1900,” Culpin’s August 13, 1892; and Assistant Adjutant General Indorse- files, Historian’s Office, HRC. ment, September 16 1892; all in box 117, entry 464, RG 94, 23. Harris, “Inspection Report of Camp Sheridan,” National Archives. Copies in folder “Fort Yellowstone—Gen- August, 5, 1887. eral Correspondence, 1892–1900,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s 24. Mason to the Adjutant General, September 8, Office, HRC. 1887. 43. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 11. 25. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 4. 44. Simmons and Simmons, National Historic Land- 26. Harris, Annual Report for 1886, 11. mark Nomination, 5. 27. Ibid., 13. 45. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 13. 28. Harris, Annual Report for 1889, 11. 46. Captain George Anderson to Adjutant General, U.S. 29. Ibid., 11–12. Army, April 10, 1894, and Adjutant General to Commanding 30. G. Chandler, Acting Secretary of the Department of Officer, Department of Dakota, May 2, 1894, both in box the Interior, to Captain F. A. Boutelle, Acting Superintendent 117, entry 464, RG 94, National Archives. Copies in folder of Yellowstone National Park, October 23, 1890, document “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, 1892–1900,” # 217, letter box 1, item 2, YNPA. Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 31. Quartermaster, U.S.A., Chief Quartermaster to 47. Simmons and Simmons, National Historic Land- Quartermaster General, U.S. Army, February 25, 1890, mark Nomination, 6. consolidated file “Fort Sheridan–Camp Sheridan,” box 1026, 48. Oscar J. Brown, Annual Report for 1899, 9. RG 92, National Archives. Copy in folder “Camp Sheri- 49. Ibid. dan—General Correspondence, 1883–1891,” Culpin’s files, 50. John Pitcher, Annual Report for 1901, 7. Historian’s Office, HRC. 51. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 34. 32. Thomas H. Ruger, Brigadier General, Command- 52. Ibid., 15. For a thorough discussion of the engineer ing to the Adjutant General, U. S. Army, January 16, 1891, officer’s involvement in the construction of the roads and document #301, letter box 1, item 2, YNPA. bridges in Yellowstone National Park, see Mary Shivers Culpin, 33. Ibid. The History of the Construction of the Road System in Yellowstone 34. Ibid. National Park, 1872–1966, Historic Resource Study volume 1 35. John W. Noble to Secretary of War, February 27, ( Denver: National Park Service, 1994). 1891, consolidated file “Fort Sheridan–Camp Sheridan,” 53. Hiram Martin Chittenden, The Yellowstone box 1026, RG 92, National Archives. Copy in folder “Camp National Park: Historical and Descriptive, 5th ed. (Cincinnati: Sheridan—General Correspondence, 1883–1891,” Culpin’s The Robert Clarke Company, 1905), 278. files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 54. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1901, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 36. Haines, vol. 2, 454. 11. 37. Ibid., 162. 55. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 36. Chit- 38. G. H. Sands, 1st Lieutenant, to the Secretary of the tenden served two tours of duty in the park. The first ran Interior, February 16, 1891, as quoted in Battle and Thomp- from 1891 to 1892; the second from 1899 to 1906 (Haines,

Notes to Chapter 3 181 vol. 2, 465). 82. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1903, 4. 56. Linda Flint McClelland, Building the National Parks: 83. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 19. Historic Landscape Design and Construction (Baltimore: Johns 84. Ibid., 15, 19–20. Hopkins University Press, 1998), 47. 85. Major W. E. Wieden [?], Assistant Adjutant Gen- 57. Haines, vol. 2, 165. eral, to the Commanding Officer, Fort Yellowstone, October 58. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 16. 13, 1904, box 1, RG 393, National Archives. Copy in folder 59. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1902, 13. “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, 1904–1907,” 60. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 35. Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 61. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1902, 12, 13. 86. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, 62. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1903, 3, 4, 8. Context Study of the United States Quartermaster General 63. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1904, 11. Standardized Plans, 1866–1942. November 1972 [hereafter 64. Haines, vol. 2, 165. Context Study]. 65. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1902, 4, 13. 87. Ibid., 31. 66. Simmons and Simmons, National Historic Land- 88. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 231. mark Nomination, 7. 89. Ibid., 15. 67. Battle and Thompson (Fort Yellowstone, 7) wrote, 90. Captain Moses Harris to H. Muldrow, September “Unfortunately, despite an intensive search of written docu- 1, 1886, microcopies of records in the National Archives, no. ments and maps, it has not been possible to prove by his- 62, roll 3, YNPA. torical methods that the house he planned is the building 91. Harris, Annual Report for 1887, 3, 28; Haines, vol. standing.” 2, 6, 11. 68. Hiram Martin Chittenden, “Improvement of Yel- 92. Harris, Annual Report for 1886, 6. lowstone National Park.” Appendix GGG of the Annual Report 93. Harris, Annual Report for 1887, 15. For information of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army Upon the Construction, on Wilson, see Haines, vol. 2, 448. Repair, and Maintenance of Roads and Bridges in the Yellowstone 94. Haines, vol. 2, 448. Harris’s men went on daily National Park (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Of- patrols from each station, usually under the direction of the fice, 1903), 2889. park scout. Even with the help of these guides, Harris felt the 69. Chittenden, “Improvement,” 2889. available force was inadequate for protecting the park, and 70. This excerpt was taken from Roosevelt’s complete hoped to supplement his one troop of cavalry with the addi- speech as it appeared in Lee H. Whittlesey and Paul Schullery, tion of a company of infantry and two more scouts (Harris, “The Roosevelt Arch: A Centennial History of an American Annual Report for 1887, 12). Icon,” Yellowstone Science 11(3) (Summer 2003): 2–24. 95. According to Robert Flather, retired park ranger 71. Acting Superintendent Pitcher referred to the arch and authority on snowshoe cabins in the park, six cabins as Roosevelt Arch in his Annual Report for 1905, page 3. were authorized, but only five were built under contract to 72. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1903, 7. Lawrence Link of Gardiner, Montana. Robert Flather, personal 73. Chittenden, “Improvement,” 2890. interview, October 2003. 74. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1904, 3, 11. Major Hiram 96. John Noble, Secretary of the Interior, to Capt. F. A. Chittenden to Major John Pitcher, June 1, 1904, document Boutelle, Acting Superintendent of the Yellowstone National #7988, letter box 15, item 29, YNPA. Park, September 25, 1890, document #236, letter box 1, 75. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1905, 3. item 2, YNPA. 76. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 61. 97. George Smith Anderson, Annual Report for 1891, 77. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1906, 5. 4, 5. 78. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1902, 5; Pitcher, Annual 98. Ibid., and Anderson, Annual Report for 1892, 5. See Report for 1903, 4. also Captain George Anderson to Adjutant General, August 79. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1904, 9–10. 13, 1892, box 117, entry 464, RG 94, National Archives. 80. Ibid. Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, 81. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1905, 10. Pitcher used the 1892–1900,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. statistic of 4,000 visitors in 1892, but Aubrey Haines listed the 99. Anderson, Annual Report for 1893, 7. visitation number for 1892 at 7,290 (Pitcher, Annual Report 100. Haines, vol. 2, 191. for 1906, 9; Haines, vol. 2, 478). 101. Lieutenant Colonel 6th Cavalry, Acting Inspector

182 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” General, to Inspector General, U.S. Army, August 30, 1899, 2, tional Park,” in Pitcher, Annual Report for 1905, 13; Chitten- file “Fort Yellowstone,” box 1269, RG 92, National Archives. den, “Improvement Yellowstone National Park,” in Pitcher, Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, Annual Report for 1904, 13; Major Hiram Chittenden to 1892–1900,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Major John Pitcher, June 1, 1904, document #7988, letter 102. Anderson, Annual Report for 1894, 6. box 15, item 29, YNPA. 103. Ibid., 6. 127. Wieden [?] to Commanding Officer, October 104. Anderson, Annual Report for 1895, 7. 13, 1904. 105. Ibid. 128. Albert [?], Military Secretary, to Commanding Of- 106. Anderson, Annual Report for 1894, 8–9. ficer, Fort Yellowstone, September 13, 1905, box 1, RG 393, 107. Samuel B. M. Young, Annual Report for 1897, 7. National Archives. Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—Gen- 108. Col. S. B. M. Young to Secretary of the Interior, eral Correspondence, 1904–1907,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s July 10, 1897, Item 218, Letters Sent, July 24, 1896–October Office, HRC. 1, 1897, YNPA. 129. John H. Dean, Assistant Superintendent, to Maj. P. 109. Station logs are still kept, but rangers are no longer H. Conger, Superintendent, July 31, 1883, document #1368, required to submit monthly reports. letter box 5, item 9, YNPA. 110. Young to Secretary of the Interior, July 10, 130. Harris, Annual Report for 1886, 6. 1897. 131. Ibid., 8. 111. James B. Erwin, Annual Report for 1898, 6. 132. Harris, Annual Report for 1887, 14. 112. Oscar J. Brown, Annual Report for 1899, 3. 133. Harris, Annual Report for 1886, 6. 113. Ibid., 9. 134. Harris, Annual Report for 1889, 10. 114. It is unclear if Brown used the snowshoe cabin at 135. Harris, Annual Report for 1887, 12. Hellroaring Creek as his “new station.” He could have adjusted 136. Harris, Annual Report for 1889, 7. the number of men at the cabin and decided to keep it manned 137. Ibid. year round (Brown, Annual Report for 1899, 4, 13). 138. Harris, Annual Report for 1888, 13. 115. Oscar J. Brown, Annual Report for 1899, 4. 139. Haines, vol. 2, 54. For an excellent discussion of 116. Ibid. the wildlife policies of this period, see Haines, The Yellowstone 117. Brown listed the routes soldiers were to take from Story, vol. 2, chapter 14, and Paul Schullery, Searching for Yel- the various stations in Brown, Annual Report for 1899, 12–13. lowstone: Ecology and Wonder in the Last Wilderness (Boston: According to a Yellowstone National Park and Forest Reserve Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997), chapter 7. map by the U.S. Geological Survey for 1900, there were 140. Schullery, Searching for Yellowstone, 113. twenty-one snowshoe cabins in 1900. A copy of the map can 141. Harris, Annual Report for 1887, 12, 13. be found in the original bound copies of Annual Reports vol. 142. Harris, Annual Report for 1888, 6. 5, 1895–1900, YNPL. 143. As quoted in Hampton, How the U.S. Cavalry 118. George W. Goode, Annual Report for 1900, 4, 8. Saved Our National Parks, 91. 119. Ibid. 144. Ibid. 120. John Pitcher, Annual Report for 1901, 10. 145. Frazier A. Boutelle, Supplemental Report of the 121. Chittenden, “Improvement Yellowstone National Superintendent of the Yellowstone National Park (Washington, Park,” in Pitcher, Annual Report for 1901, 11. D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1889), 21, 22. 122. Chittenden, “Improvement Yellowstone National 146. Frazier A. Boutelle, Annual Report for 1890, 5. Park,” in Pitcher, Annual Report for 1902, 14. 147. Ibid., 6. 123. Chittenden, “Statement of Work Done During 148. Boutelle, Supplemental Report, 22. Year 1903, Improvement of Yellowstone National Park,” in 149. Boutelle, Annual Report for 1890, 7. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1903, 9. 150. Boutelle, Supplemental Report, 22. 124. Captain Hiram Chittenden to Major John Pitcher, 151. Boutelle, Annual Report for 1890, 6. September 28, 1903, document #6049, letter box 12, item 152. John W. Noble, Secretary of the Interior, to Capt. 24, YNPA. F. A. Boutelle, Acting Superintendent, Yellowstone National 125. Robert Flather, written correspondence with Park, August 25, 1890, document #271, letter box 1, item author, June 9, 2003. 2, YNPA. 126. Chittenden, “Improvement of Yellowstone Na- 153. John W. Noble, Secretary of the Interior, to Capt.

Notes to Chapter 3 183 F. A. Boutelle, Acting Superintendent of the Yellowstone 182. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1904, 7. National Park, December 12, 1890, document #265, letter 183. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1905, 9. box 1, item 2, YNPA. 184. Young, “Supplemental Report,” Annual Report 154. James A. Pritchard, Preserving Yellowstone’s Natu- for 1897, 25. ral Conditions: Science and the Perception of Nature (Lincoln: 185. James B. Erwin, Annual Report for 1898, 13. University of Nebraska Press, 1999), 24. 186. Haines, vol. 2, 92. 155. Haines, vol. 2, 89. 187. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1903, 4. 156. Boutelle, Annual Report for 1889, 22, 23. 188. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1906, 9–10. 157. See Paul Schullery, Searching For Yellowstone; John 189. Young, Annual Report for 1897, 8. D. Varley and Paul Schullery, Freshwater Wilderness (Yellow- 190. Elmer Lindsley [“report regarding the fishes, stone Park: Yellowstone Library and Museum Association, birds, and animals in the park”], in Young, Annual Report for 1983). 1897, 27. 158. Boutelle, Annual Report for 1890, 7,8. 191. Erwin, Annual Report for 1898, 11. 159. Boutelle, Supplemental Report, 23. 192. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1901, 6. 160. Boutelle, Annual Report for 1890, 11. 193. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1902, 9. 161. Anderson, Annual Report for 1891, 8. 194. Haines, vol. 2, 72–74. For more information on 162. Anderson, Annual Report for 1892, 7, 9. Buffalo Jones, see Paul Schullery, “Buffalo Jones and the Bison 163. Anderson, Annual Report for 1894, 9–10. Herd in Yellowstone,” Montana the Magazine of Western History 164. From the Lacey Act and the “Rules and Regula- 26(3) (July 1976): 40–51. tions of the Yellowstone Park” by Secretary of the Interior 195. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1902, 10. Michael Hoke Smith, as printed in Anderson, Annual Report 196. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1906, 8–9. for 1894, 12–15. 197. Ibid., 5. 165. Anderson was also pleased by the entertainment 198. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1905, 6. value of the park’s bears. While he found bears troublesome, 199. Ibid. they “are not in the least dangerous,” he noted in 1892, and 200. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1902, 7. again in 1895. In fact, he found their presence near the hotels 201. Harris, Annual Report for 1887, 14–15. to be “a source of great amusement.” Anderson, Annual Report 202. Harris, Annual Report for 1888, 14–15. for 1892, 10, and Annual Report for 1895, 13. 203. George W. Goode, Second Lieutenant First Cav- 166. John W. Noble, Secretary of the Interior, to Cap- alry, Post Adjutant, Orders No. 37 as given in Section E of tain George Anderson, June 13, 1892, document #371, letter Harris’s Annual Report for 1887, 28. box 1, item 2, YNPA. 204. Harris, Annual Report for 1887, 8. 167. Anderson, Annual Report for 1893, 14, and Annual 205. Harris, Annual Report for 1889, 12. Report for 1894, 11. 206. Anderson, Annual Report for 1895, 4, and Ander- 168. Anderson, Annual Report for 1892, 10. son, Annual Report for 1896, 5. 169. Ibid. 207. Anderson, Annual Report for 1894, 12. 170. Anderson, Annual Report for 1895, 13. 208. Director, U.S. Geological Survey to Secretary of 171. Anderson, Annual Report for 1896, 13. the Interior, September 3, 1897, box 54, entry 1, RG 57[?], 172. Ibid., 12. National Archives. Copy of cover letter in folder “History— 173. Anderson, Annual Report for 1894, 8. Boundaries,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 174. Anderson, Annual Report for 1895, 11. 209. Erwin, Annual Report for 1898, 4–6. 175. “Instructions to Persons Traveling Through Yellow- 210. Noble to Anderson, June 13, 1892. stone National Park,” in Young, Annual Report for 1897, 17. 211. Anderson, Annual Report for 1894, 4. 176. Haines, vol. 2, 91. 212. Anderson, Annual Report for 1895, 4. 177. Schullery, Searching For Yellowstone, 166. 213. Anderson, Annual Report for 1896, 3–4. 178. Ibid., 253. 214. Young, Annual Report for 1897, 4–5, 17. 179. Anderson, Annual Report for 1895, 6–7. 215. Young, “Supplemental Report,” in Annual Report 180. Young, “Supplemental Report,” Annual Report for 1897, 23. for 1897, 23. 216. Erwin, Annual Report for 1898, 6. 181. Young, Annual Report for 1897, 9. 217. Ibid., 6–8.

184 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” 218. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1906, 12. 13. Ibid., 26. 219. Young, “Supplemental Report,” in Annual Report 14. Ibid. for 1897, 24. 15. Hampton, How the U.S. Cavalry Saved Our National 220. Director, U.S. Geological Survey to Secretary of Parks, 175–176. the Interior, September 3, 1897. 16. [Major General J. F.] Bell, Chief of Staff, to General 221. Goode, Annual Report for 1900, 10–11. S. B. M. Young, January 18, 1908, folder “Fort Yellowstone,” 222. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1904, 13. box 218, entry 6, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder 223. Ibid. “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, 1908–1910,” 224. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1906, 14, 15. Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 225. Ibid. 17. S. B. M. Young to Maj. Gen. J. F. Bell, U.S. Army, 226. Ibid., 14. Chief of Staff, January 31, 1908, folder “Fort Yellowstone,” 227. Ibid., 12. box 218, entry 6, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder 228. Ibid., 14. “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, 1908–1910,” 229. Noble to Anderson, June 13, 1892. Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 230. Pitcher, Annual Report for 1906, 12. 18. Lieut. Gen. U.S. Army, retired, S. B. M. Young, to 231. Harris, Annual Report for 1887, 24. James Rudolph Garfield, Secretary of the Interior, February 1, 1908, folder “Fort Yellowstone,” box 218, entry 6, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—Gen- CHAPTER 4 eral Correspondence, 1908–1910,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s 1. Hiram M. Chittenden, The Yellowstone National Park: Office, HRC. Historical and Descriptive, 5th ed. (Cincinnati: The Robert 19. Alexander Lambert to Theodore Roosevelt, Sep- Clarke Company, 1905), 115. tember 9, 1908, folder “Troops,” box 253, entry 6, RG 79, 2. Samuel B. M. Young, Annual Report of the Superin- National Archives. tendent of the Yellowstone National Park to the Secretary of the 20. Young, Annual Report for 1908, 14. Interior, 1907, 24–26, hereafter Annual Report for [year]. 21. Alexander Lambert to Secretary of the Interior 3. Aubrey L. Haines, The Yellowstone Story: A History of James Garfield, September 29, 1908, box 253, entry 6, RG Our First National Park, revised ed. (Niwot, Colo.: University 79, National Archives. Press of Colorado, 1996), vol. 2, 457 [hereafter Haines, vol. 22. James Garfield, Report of the Secretary of the Interior 1 or 2]. for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1909 (Washington D.C.: 4. Haines, vol. 2, 458. Government Printing Office, 1909), 42. 5. See Haines, vol. 2, chapter 9, “Enter the Rangers,” 23. Haines, vol. 2, 457. and H. Duane Hampton, How the U.S. Cavalry Saved Our 24. Robert Shaw [?], Acting Secretary of War, to Secretary National Parks (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971), of the Interior, December 6, 1909, folder “Fort Yellowstone chapter 9, “The Culmination of an Idea.” Military Post,” box 218, entry 6, RG 79, National Archives. 6. See chapter 3 of this document. Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, 7. Young, Annual Report for 1907, 25. 1908–1910,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 8. Ibid. 25. Congressman Harry Coudrey to Secretary of the 9. Horace M. Albright, Acting Director of the National Interior Richard Ballinger, April 11, 1910, and Secretary of Park Service, memorandum to Secretary of the Interior, Sep- the Interior Richard Ballinger to Congressman Harry Coudrey, tember 24, 1917, folder “Troops in Park,” box 253, entry 6, April 13, 1910, both in box 253, entry 6, RG 79, National record group [hereafter RG] 79, National Archives. Copy in Archives. folder “History—Military—1917–1921,” Marcy Culpin’s 26. Secretary of the Interior to Secretary of War, April files [hereafter Culpin’s files], Historian’s Office, Yellowstone 13, 1910, box 253, entry 6, RG 79, National Archives; Sec- Heritage and Research Center, Yellowstone National Park, retary of War to Secretary of the Interior, April 28, 1910, file Montana [hereafter HRC]. “Troops: Required in Park and Use of,” box A-7, Yellowstone 10. Hampton, How the U.S. Cavalry Saved Our National National Park Archives [hereafter YNPA]. Parks, 176. 27. Acting Secretary of the Interior to Secretary of the 11. Young, Annual Report for 1907, 25. Interior, August 12, 1910; Secretary of the Interior to R. B. 12. Ibid. Marshall, August 31, 1910; Telegram from Richard Ballinger

Notes to Chapter 4 185 to Frank Pierce, August 25, 1910, all in folder “Troops,” box 47. Secretary of War Lindley Garrison to Secretary of the 253, entry 6, RG 79, National Archives. Interior Franklin Lane, May 1, 1914, file “Troops: Required 28. Ibid. in Park and Use of,” box A-7, YNPA. 29. M. J. V. to George Ward, April 4, 1911, and 48. Secretary of War Lindley Garrison to Hon. J. J. George Ward to Comptroller of the Treasury, June 21, 1911, Fitzgerald, January 30, 1915, file “Troops: Required in Park both in folder “Troops,” box 253, entry 6, RG 79, National and Use of,” box A-7, YNPA. Archives. 49. Carr, Wilderness by Design, 74. 30. Linda Flint McClelland, Building the National 50. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 124. Parks: Historic Landscape Design and Construction (Baltimore: 51. Stephen Mather to Col. L. M. Brett, May 20, 1915, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 8, and Haines, and Col. L. M. Brett to Secretary of the Interior Franklin vol. 2, 284. Lane, May 26, 1915, both in file “1913–1915,” letter box 41, 31. Haines, vol. 2, 284; Ethan Carr, Wilderness By item 87, YNPA. H. M. Albright to Col. L. M. Brett, June 4, Design: Landscape Architecture and the National Park Service 1915, file “Employees, Assistants Secretary of the Interior,” (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998), 70. letter box 60, item 102A, Employees, Assistants Secretary of 32. “Introduction,” Proceedings of the National Park the Interior, YNPA. Conference Held at Yellowstone National Park September 11 52. Stephen Mather to Col. L.M. Brett, December 28, and 12, 1911 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1915, file “1913–1915,” letter box 41, item 87, YNPA. 1912), 1. 53. Haines, vol. 2, 287. 33. “Remarks by Lieutenant Colonel L. M. Brett, Act- 54. As quoted in ibid., 289. ing Superintendent, Yellowstone National Park,” Proceedings 55. Ibid., 286. of the National Park Conference Held at Yellowstone National 56. Ibid., 287. Park September 11 and 12, 1911 (Washington: Government 57. Ibid., 286. Printing Office, 1912), 154–155. 58. Hampton, How the U.S. Cavalry Saved Our National 34. As quoted in Carr, Wilderness by Design, 72. Parks, 178–179. 35. Haines, vol. 2, 284. 59. Annual Report of the Superintendent of National Parks 36. Proceedings of the National Park Conference Held to the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, at the Yellowstone National Park, September 11 and 12, 1911 1916 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1916), (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1912); Lt. 13–14, hereafter Director’s Report for [year]. Col. L. M. Brett, Annual Report for 1912, 15. 60. Memorandum from J. Cotter to Stephen Mather, 37. Brett, Annual Report for 1912, 15. April 14, 1916, folder “Troops,” box 253, entry 6, RG 79, 38. Brett, Annual Report for 1915, 30. National Archives. 39. Carr, Wilderness by Design, 72–73. 61. Secretary of the Interior Franklin Lane to Secretary 40. By 1913, there were eleven national parks: Yosemite of War Newton Baker, July 18, 1916, and Secretary of War (1890), Sequoia (1890), General Grant (1890), Mount Rainier Newton Baker to Secretary of the Interior Franklin Lane, July (1899), Crater Lake (1902), and Wind Cave, Sully’s Hill, Platt, 20, 1916, both in file “Troops: Required in Park and Use of,” Mesa Verde, and Glacier (1910). box A-7, YNPA. 41. Department of the Interior, 1913 Annual Reports, as 62. Memorandum from Adjutant General W. M. quoted in Carr, Wilderness by Design, 73 and note 66, 323. Wright to Commanding General, Western Department, Au- 42. Carr, Wilderness by Design, 73. gust 1, 1916, folder “Inspections & Investigations,” box 218, 43. Col. L. M. Brett to Adolph Miller, Assistant to the entry 6, RG 79, National Archives; Franklin Lane to Newton Secretary of the Interior, October 21, 1913; Telegram from Baker, June 15, 1917, folder “Troops in Park,” box 253, entry Adolph Miller, Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior, Octo- 6, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “History Mili- ber 25, 1913; Adolph Miller to Col. L. M. Brett, October 28, tary—1917–1921,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC; 1913, all in box 253, entry 6, RG 79, National Archives. and Robert Marshall to Stephen Mather, September 7, 1916, 44. Carr, Wilderness by Design, 73. file “Troops Required and Use of,” box A-7, YNPA. 45. Ibid., 74. 63. Acting Secretary of the Interior to Secretary of War, 46. Adolph Miller, Assistant to the Secretary of the September 11, 1916, folder “Inspections & Investigations,” Interior to Secretary of War, March 21, 1914, file “Troops: box 218, entry 6, RG 79, National Archives. Required in Park and Use of,” box A-7, YNPA. 64. David G. Battle and Erwin N. Thompson, Fort

186 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Yellowstone: Historic Structures Report (Denver: National Park of post,” September 16, 1912, III Quartermaster’s Depart- Service, 1972), 23. ment: #62, folder 1156, box 16, RG 393, National Archives. 65. Ibid., 239. Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, 66. Context Study of the United States Quartermaster 1911–1914,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. General Standardized Plans, 1866–1942 (Washington, D.C.: 91. Ucker, “Report of the Chief Clerk, September 22, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, 1997), 40. 1910.” 67. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 82. 92. Colonel L. M. Brett to Secretary of the Interior 68. Context Study, 227. Franklin Lane, November 4, 1913, folder “Accommodations 69. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 81; Context at Hotel and Camps, 1901–1917,” box 20, item 39, YNPA. Study, 227. 93. Superintendent Young to the Secretary of the In- 70. Context Study, 227. terior, December 14, 1908, document #8249, letter box 15, 71. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 81. item 29, YNPA. 72. As quoted in ibid., 93–94. 94. R. Laurie Simmons and Thomas H. Simmons, Draft 73. Ibid., 94. “National Historic Landmark Nomination Fort Yellowstone,” 74. Context Study, 39. May 10, 2000, 21. Copy available in YNPA and YCR. 75. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 94. 95. According to retired park service ranger Robert 76. Ibid., 88. Flather, the cabin at Buffalo Lake was built earlier than 1912, 77. Ibid., 223–224. but the exact date is not known. The cabin, he writes, was in 78. Ibid., 245–246. existence by August 1911, according to the Bechler Station 79. Ibid., 27, 151–152. Log. Flather claims that the Buffalo Lake cabin is the “oldest 80. Context Study, 39. existing snowshoe cabin still serving its original purpose.” 81. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 140. “The oldest cabin is what is now the Hellroaring barn built 82. Aubrey L. Haines, A History of the Yellowstone Na- in Oct. 1898.” Quotes are from Flather’s unpublished com- tional Park Chapel (Yellowstone National Park, 1963), 3–7. ments, dated June 9, 2003, located in folder “Slough Creek,” 83. Clement Ucker, “Report of the Chief Clerk of the Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Department on the Yellowstone National Park, September 96. Aubrey L. Haines, Charles S. Pope and Erwin N. 22, 1910,” folder “Inspections and Investigations,” box 218, Thompson, Norris Soldier Station, Yellowstone National Park: entry 6, RG 79, National Archives. Historic Structures Report (Washington, D.C.: National Park 84. Context Study, 204–205. Service, 1969), 30. 85. Haines, A History of the Yellowstone National Park 97. See chapter 2 of this document. Chapel, 7–8. 98. Haines et al., Norris Soldier Station, 20. 86. Battle and Thompson, Fort Yellowstone, 159. 99. Ibid., 26. 87. Major W. H. Gordon, Inspector General, to Com- 100. Simmons and Simmons, Draft “National Historic manding Officer, May 19, 1911, folder “Inspection of Post,” Landmark Nomination Fort Yellowstone,”19. box 15, RG 393, National Archives. Copy in folder “Fort Yel- 101. Haines et al., Norris Soldier Station, 31. lowstone—General Correspondence, 1911–1914,” Culpin’s 102. Simmons and Simmons, Draft “National Historic files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Landmark Nomination Fort Yellowstone,”19, note 29. 88. L. M. Brett to [Inspector General?], [May 1911?], 103. As quoted in McClelland, Building the National folder “Inspection of Post,” box 15, RG 393, National Ar- Parks, 434. chives. Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspon- 104. Ibid., 103. dence, 1911–1914,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 105. Simmons and Simmons, Draft “National Historic 89. Robert L. Louwburg [?], 2nd Lieutenant, 1st Landmark Nomination Fort Yellowstone,”19–20. Cavalry, Adjutant, “Re new bakery and riding hall,” folder 106. Ibid., 20. “Buildings new, #942,” box 15, RG 393, National Archives. 107. Ibid., 20–21. Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, 108. Young, Annual Report for 1907, 8. 1911–1914,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 109. This according to Robert Flather, retired park 90. Robert L. Louwburg [?], 2nd Lieutenant, 1st ranger, who has studied the park’s soldier stations and snow- Cavalry, Adjutant, “Report of irregularities and deficiencies shoe cabins extensively, from a personal interview with Flather noted by Major Alonzo Gray, I.G., during recent inspection in October 2003.

Notes to Chapter 4 187 110. Brett, Annual Report for 1911, 12. 12, 1911, 2, folder 859, box 15, RG 393, National Archives. 111. “List of Buildings Owned by Interior Department,” Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, January 21, 1918, “Dates of Construction or Improvements 1911–1914,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Made to Structures in YNP, List of Buildings, Memoranda, 125. Marion P. Maus, Commanding General, to 1918, 1920,” vertical files, History—YNP—Structures, Adjutant General of the Army, October 24, 1912, #20, 5, YNPL. folder “Inspections Post and Park Stations,” box 16, RG 393, 112. Robert Flather, “Gallatin Station,” [no date], National Archives. Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—Gen- unpublished report, according to a copy acquired from the eral Correspondence, 1911–1914,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s author in October 2003. Office, HRC. 113. Brett, Annual Report for 1912, 14–15. 126. Colonel J. L. Chamberlain, Inspector General, to 114. Brett, Annual Report for 1914, 17. Commanding Officer, Fort Yellowstone, Wyoming, September 115. Haines, vol. 2, 183; Culpin, “Ranger Stations/Pa- 15, 1913, Soldier Stations: #36, 4, folder “Inspection Annual,” trol Cabins,” note 18. box 17, RG 393, National Archives. Copy in folder “Fort Yel- 116. Acting Adjutant General to Commanding Officer, lowstone—General Correspondence, 1911–1914,” Culpin’s Telegram, June 21, 1910, and H. C. Benson to Quartermas- files, Historian’s Office, HRC. ter General, rough draft of letter, box 13, RG 393, National 127. Brett, Annual Report for 1913, 9–10. Archives, as cited in Mary Shivers Culpin, “Ranger Stations/ 128. Assistant Secretary of the Interior to Secretary Patrol Cabins, Yellowstone NP, April 23, 1997,” unpublished of Commerce, August 6, 1913, entry 7, RG 79, National paper, Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Archives. 117. Culpin, “Ranger Stations/Patrol Cabins,” 4. 129. Brett, Annual Report for 1913, 7, 6. 118. “Report of irregularities and deficiencies noted by 130. Brett, Annual Report for 1914, 13. Major Alonzo Gray, I.G., during recent inspection of post,” 131. Brett, Annual Report for 1915, 25. September 16, 1912, IV sub Stations need repair as follows: 132. Ibid., 16–24. #85, folder “Inspections and Investigations,” box 16, RG 393, 133. Young, Annual Report for 1907, 8. National Archives. Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—Gen- 134. Carr, Wilderness by Design, 73–74 and note 69, eral Correspondence, 1911–1914,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s page 323. Office, HRC. 135. From the Proceedings of the National Park Confer- 119. Inspector General to the Commanding Officer ence Held at Berkeley, California, 1915, as quoted in Carr, [L. M. Brett], Fort Yellowstone, Wyoming, October 6, 1911, Wilderness by Design, 75, and note 74, page 323. Quartermaster’s Department: #22, 4, folder 859, box 15, 136. Carr, Wilderness by Design, 74. RG 393, National Archives. Copy in folder “Fort Yellow- 137. From the Proceedings of the National Park Confer- stone—General Correspondence, 1911–1914,” Culpin’s files, ence Held at Berkeley, California, 1915, as quoted in Carr, Historian’s Office, HRC. Wilderness by Design, 75, and note 74, page 323. 120. Ucker, “Report of the Chief Clerk, September 138. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 124. 22, 1910.” 139. Frederick Law Olmsted, “The Distinction Between 121. Culpin, “Ranger Stations/Patrol Cabins,” note National Parks and National Forests,” Landscape Architecture 18. VI(3) (April 1916): 114–115. 122. Brigadier General Marion Maus to the Adjutant 140. W. H. Gordon, Inspector General, to Command- General of the Army, October 14, 1911, folder 880, box 15, ing Officer [L. M. Brett], May 19, 1911, Commanding RG 393, National Archives, as quoted in Culpin, “Ranger Officer: #9, 2, folder “Inspection of Post,” box 15, RG 393, Stations/Patrol Cabins,” 5. National Archives. Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—Gen- 123. Inspector General to the Commanding Officer eral Correspondence, 1911–1914,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s [L. M. Brett], Fort Yellowstone, Wyoming, October 6, 1911, Office, HRC. Quartermaster’s Department: #22, 3, folder 859, box 15, 141. Alonzo Gray, Major, Inspector General, to the RG 393, National Archives. Copy in folder “Fort Yellow- Adjutant General, Western Division, August 30, 1912, 3, stone—General Correspondence, 1911–1914,” Culpin’s files, 6, folder 1156, box 16, RG 393, National Archives. Copy Historian’s Office, HRC. in folder “Fort Yellowstone—General Correspondence, 124. L. M. Brett, Lieutenant Colonel, 1st Cavalry, to 1911–1914,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. the Adjutant General, Department of the Columbia, October 142. Chamberlain to Commanding Officer, September

188 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” 15, 1913. 169. Though not purposely introduced, mountain 143. Gray to Adjutant General, Western Division, goats have been extant in Yellowstone National Park since August 30, 1912. the 1980s, when herds introduced to surrounding areas by 144. Chamberlain to Commanding Officer, September the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks in the 15, 1913. 1940s and 1950s, and the Idaho Department of Fish and 145. Maus to Adjutant General of the Army, October Game in 1969–1971, were found to have colonized in the 24, 1912. park. Yellowstone National Park, Yellowstone’s Northern Range: 146. Colonel J. L. Chamberlain, Inspector General, to Complexity and Change in a Wildland Ecosystem (Mammoth Commanding Officer [L. M. Brett], Fort Yellowstone, Wyo- Hot Springs, Wyo.: National Park Service, 1997), 93. ming, August 24, 1914, #1, 1, folder 1956, box 18, RG 393, 170. Paul Schullery and Lee Whittlesey, “Mountain National Archives. Copy in folder “Fort Yellowstone—Gen- Goats in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: A Prehistoric eral Correspondence, 1911–1914,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s and Historical Context,” Western North American Naturalist Office, HRC. 61(3) (July 2001), 298. 147. Maus to Adjutant General of the Army, October 171. Brett, Annual Report for 1913, 13–14. 24, 1912. 172. Young, Annual Report for 1907, 11, and Benson, 148. Brett, Annual Report for 1911. Annual Report for 1910, 11. 149. Ibid., 11. 173. Ibid. 150. Young, Annual Report for 1908, 9. 174. Benson, Annual Report for 1910, 11. 151. Report of the General Superintendent of Parks to 175. Ucker, “Report of the Chief Clerk, September the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 22, 1910.” 1916, 30–36. 176. Brett, Annual Report for 1911, 12. 152. Young, Annual Report for 1908, 8. 177. Brett, Annual Report for 1912, 14. 153. Brett, Annual Report for 1914, 17. 178. Brett, Annual Report for 1913, 13–14. 154. Brett, Annual Report for 1916, 34. 179. Brett, Annual Report for 1914, 17. 155. Benson, Annual Report for 1909, 11. 180. Ibid., 19. 156. Ibid. 181. Brett, Annual Report for 1915, 25. 157. Young, Annual Report for 1907, 14, and Annual 182. Ibid. Report for 1908, 11. 183. Brett, Annual Report for 1914, 20. 158. Brett, Annual Report for 1915, 19. 184. Young, “Instructions of July 2, 1908,” Annual 159. Brett, Annual Report for 1912, 13, and Annual Report for 1908, 16–17. Report for 1916, 38. 185. Young, Annual Report for 1907, 8. 160. Benson, Annual Report for 1910, 10. 186. Ibid. 161. Ibid. 187. Ucker, “Report of the Chief Clerk, September 162. Brett, Annual Report for 1911, 11. 22, 1910.” 163. Brett, Annual Report for 1913, 13, and Annual 188. Major Wallace DeWitt to Captain H.C. Benson, Report for 1916, 36. October 26, 1910, folder “Repairs/Improvements,” box 240, 164. Mark Daniels to Secretary of the Interior, October entry 6, RG 79, National Archives. 23, 1914, folder “Inspections and Investigations,” box 218, 189. Brett, Annual Report for 1914, 18–19. entry 6, RG 79, National Archives. 190. Brett, Annual Report for 1912, 5. 165. T. M. Koel, J. L. Arnold, P. E. Bigelow, P. D. 191. Ibid., 14–15. Doepke, B. D. Ertel, and D. L. Mahony, Yellowstone Fisheries 192. Brett, Annual Report for 1913, 5. and Aquatic Science: Annual Report, 2003 (Yellowstone Na- 193. Ibid., 14. tional Park, Wyo.: National Park Service, Yellowstone Center 194. Carr, Wilderness by Design, 63. for Resources, YCR-NR-2004-03, 2004), 2. 195. Brett, Annual Report for 1913, 14, and Carr, Wil- 166. Brett, Annual Report for 1916, 28–29. derness by Design, 73. 167. James Rudolph Garfield, Secretary of the Interior, 196. Brett, Annual Report for 1914, 7. to Major John Pitcher, Acting Superintendent, April 2, 1907, 197. Ibid., 18–19. document #8079, letter box 15, YNPA. 198. Brett, Annual Report for 1915, 24–25. 168. Young, Annual Report for 1907, 12–13. 199. Colonel L. M. Brett to Secretary of the Interior,

Notes to Chapter 4 189 January 20, 1910; Bo Sweeney to R. B. Marshall, January 29, 13. Alexander Vogelsang, First Assistant Secretary, De- 1916; Ashland Commercial Club to Colonel L. M. Brett, April partment of the Interior, to the Secretary of War, March 2, 14, 1916; R. B. Marshall to Colonel L. M. Brett, June 27, 1918, box 620.01-630, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. 1916, all in folder “Repairs/Improvements,” box 246, entry Copy in folder “Miscellaneous Buildings—Mammoth, 1 of 6, RG 79, National Archives. 2,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 200. Brett, Annual Report for 1916, 42, 44. 14. Haines, vol. 2, 289–290. 201. As quoted in Carr, Wilderness by Design, 79. 15. Director’s Report for 1917, 33. 16. Haines, vol. 2, 289–290. In a memorandum to the secretary of the interior, acting NPS director Horace Albright CHAPTER 5 noted that tourists had been complaining about the troops 1. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Ser- in the park and inquiring “as to why troops were patrolling vice to the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June the park when their sons and brothers were being drafted for 30, 1917 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, service in the Army.” See Horace M. Albright, Acting Direc- 1917), 32, cited hereafter as Director’s Report for [year]. tor of the National Park Service, to Secretary of the Interior, 2. Aubrey Haines, The Yellowstone Story: A History memorandum, September 24, 1917, folder “Troops in Park,” of Our First National Park, revised ed. (Niwot, Colorado: box 253, entry 6, record group [hereafter RG] 79, National University Press of Colorado, 1996), vol. 2, 458, [hereafter Archives. Copy in folder “History—Military—1917–1921,” Haines, vol. 1 or 2]. Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 3. Haines, vol. 2, 458–459. 17. Director’s Report for 1918, 39–40. 4. See papers regarding the exchange in folder “His- 18. Haines, vol. 2, 290. tory—Military—1917–1921,” Marcy Culpin’s files [here- 19. Director’s Report for 1918, 39. after Culpin’s files], Historian’s Office, Yellowstone Heritage 20. Ibid. and Research Center, Yellowstone National Park, Montana 21. Haines, vol. 2, 293. [hereafter HRC]. 22. Horace M. Albright, Annual Report of the Superin- 5. Director’s Report for 1918, 38. tendent of the Yellowstone National Park to the Secretary of the 6. Ibid. Interior, 1920, 4–6, hereafter Annual Report for [year]. 7. As reprinted by Tom Stout in Montana, Its Story and 23. Albright, Annual Report for 1921–1922, 2. Biography (Chicago: American Historical Society, 1921), vol. 24. Haines, vol. 2, 293–294. 1, 480, as quoted in Haines, vol. 2, 290. 25. Albright, Annual Report for 1921–1922, 2. 8. Director’s Report for 1917, 32–33. 26. See Superintendent’s Annual Reports for the years 9. Chester A. Lindsley to Horace M. Albright, Assistant 1920 through 1929. Director of National Parks, February 1, 1918, box 620.01- 27. From an undated form letter signed by Superin- 630, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder tendent Roger Toll (who became superintendent in 1929) as “Miscellaneous Buildings—Mammoth, 1 of 2,” Culpin’s files, quoted by Haines, vol. 2, 296. Historian’s Office, HRC. 28. Haines, vol. 2, 299. Haines described the “routines 10. Chester A. Lindsley to Commanding Officer, Fort of rangering” in chapter 19, “Enter the Rangers.” Yellowstone, January 28, 1918, National Archives, RG 79, 29. Hiram Martin Chittenden, The Yellowstone National entry 7, CCF Yellowstone National Park, box 620.01-630. Park: Historical and Descriptive (Cincinnati: The Robert Clarke Copy in folder “Miscellaneous Buildings—Mammoth, 1 of Company, 1905), 120. 2,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 30. As quoted in Linda Flint McClelland, Building the 11. Stephen M. Mather, Director of the National Park National Parks: Historic Landscape Design and Construction Service, to Mr. Lindsley, Acting Superintendent, February 20, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 12. 1918, box 620.01-630, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. 31. Director’s Report for 1918, 10. Copy in folder “Miscellaneous Buildings—Mammoth, 1 of 32. As quoted by Ethan Carr in Wilderness by Design: 2,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Landscape Architecture and the National Park Service (Lincoln: 12. Mather to H. M. Albright, telegram, February 23, University of Nebraska Press, 1998), 81. 1918, box 620.01-630, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. 33. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 11. Copy in folder “Miscellaneous Buildings—Mammoth, 1 of 34. Carr, Wilderness by Design, 78. 2,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 35. As quoted in McClelland, Building the National

190 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Parks, 10. 71. Ibid., 39. 36. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 135– 72. Ibid. 136. 73. See Carr, Wilderness by Design, 85–88, and note 109, 37. Ibid., 136. 325–326, for an illuminating discussion of Mather’s conten- 38. Director’s Report for 1919, 25. tion that the entrance fees automobilists paid were an essential 39. Carr, Wilderness by Design, 88. part of the effort to have the parks pay for themselves. 40. Charles P. Punchard, Jr., “Landscape Design in the 74. Stephen T. Mather, “The Ideals and Policy of the National Park Service,” Landscape Architecture 10(3) (1920): National Park Service Particularly in Relation to Yosemite 144–145, as quoted in McClelland, Building the National National Park,” in Ansel F. Hall, ed., Handbook of Yosemite Parks, 137. National Park (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1921), 77–86, 41. Charles P. Punchard, Jr., to Superintendent [Horace as quoted in Carr, 86. M. Albright], August 28, 1919, 1, folder 1, box D-38, Yel- 75. Director’s Report for 1919, 46. lowstone National Park Archives [hereafter YNPA]. 76. Ibid. 42. Ibid., 1–2. 77. Albright, Annual Report for 1919, 100. 43. Director’s Report for 1919, 26. 78. “Memorandum for the press,” November 1, 1919, 44. Punchard to Superintendent, August 28, 1919, 2. 2, as part of Albright’s Annual Report for 1919. See also 45. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 150. Director’s Report for 1919, 46, in which Mather claimed that 46. Punchard to Superintendent, August 28, 1919, “nearly half of the [more than 62,000] tourists [visiting the 3–4. park that season] camped out.” 47. Ibid., 6. 79. Director’s Report for 1919, 26; Albright, Annual 48. Ibid., 4 and 6, Punchard’s emphasis. Report for 1920, 54–57. 49. Charles P. Punchard, Jr., to Horace M. Albright, 80. Albright, Annual Report for 1920, 54–57. July 21, 1920, 1, folder 1, box D-38, YNPA. 81. Punchard to Albright, July 21, 1920, 4. 50. Charles P. Punchard, Jr., to Horace M. Albright, 82. Ibid., 5. Supt., September 20, 1919, folder 1, box D-38, YNPA. 83. Director’s Report for 1921, 56. 51. Punchard to Albright, July 21, 1920, 3. 84. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 159–160; 52. Ibid. notes 1 and 2, 542–543. 53. Punchard to Albright, September 20, 1919. 85. Albright, Annual Report for 1919, 101. 54. Director’s Report for 1920, 96. 86. Director’s Report for 1920, 105. 55. Director’s Report for 1921, 169–171. 87. Haines, vol. 2, 303–304. 56. Punchard to Albright, July 21, 1920, 3. 88. D. R. Hull, Acting Landscape Engineer, to Director 57. Ibid., 1–2. of the National Park Service, April 6, 1921, box 620.01-630, 58. Director’s Report for 1919, 52. entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “Miscel- 59. Punchard to Superintendent, August 28, 1919, laneous buildings—Old Faithful, 2 of 2,” Culpin’s files, 9–10. Historian’s Office, HRC. 60. Director’s Report for 1919, 52. 89. Stephen T. Mather, Director, to Mr. Albright, April 61. Albright, Annual Report for 1920, 53–54. 13, 1921, box 620.01-630, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. 62. Ibid., 54. Copy in folder “Miscellaneous buildings—Old Faithful, 2 of 63. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 149– 2,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 150. 90. D. R. Hull, Landscape Engineer, to Director, April 64. Ibid., 149. 26, 1921, box 620.01-630, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. 65. Albright, Annual Report for 1920, 53. Copy in folder “Miscellaneous buildings—Old Faithful, 2 of 66. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 149. 2,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 67. Director’s Report for 1919, 26. 91. Horace Albright to Daniel Hull, May 25, 1921. 68. Stephen T. Mather to Mr. Horace M. Albright, Copy in folder “Construction Projects/Landscape Architec- January 10, 1922, folder 2, box D-38, YNPA. ture, 1921,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 69. Horace M. Albright to Director, January 30, 1922, 92. Horace M. Albright to Director, June 24, 1921, folder 2, box D-38, YNPA. box 620.01-630, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. Copy 70. Director’s Report for 1917, 31. in folder “Miscellaneous Buildings—Old Faithful, 2 of 2,”

Notes to Chapter 5 191 Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 111. Ibid. 93. “Construction Contract Bond—Individual,” July 112. Albright, “Monthly Report of the Superintendent,” 30, 1921, box 620.01-630, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. June 1921, 15. Copy in folder “Miscellaneous Buildings—Old Faithful, 2 of 113. Albright, Annual Report for 1921, 177, in Director’s 2,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Report for 1921, 170. 94. Albright to Director Mather, Telegram, July 27, 114. Ibid. 1921, box 620.31-630, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. 115. National Park Service, “Hellroaring Snowshoe Copy in folder “Miscellaneous Buildings—Old Faithful, 2 of Cabin,”Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian 2,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. #48YE892, LCS #50930, 6. 95. Albright to D. R. Hull, Telegram, July 26, 1921, 116. Albright, Annual Report for 1921, in Director’s box 620.31-630, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. Copy Report for 1921, 170. in folder “Miscellaneous Buildings—Old Faithful, 2 of 2,” 117. National Park Service, “Fox Creek Snowshoe Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Cabin,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian 96. Stephen T. Mather to Mr. Albright, January 10, #48YE933, LCS #51026, 6. 1922, folder 2, box D-38, YNPA. 118. National Park Service, “Assistant Buffalo Herder’s 97. Horace M. Albright, Field Assistant to the Director, Cabin at Slough Creek Hay Ranch,” Historic Structure Survey to Director, National Park Service, Attention of Mr. Cam- Form, 1999, Smithsonian #48YE939, LCS #50932, 8. merer, July 26, 1922, folder 2, box D-38, YNPA. 119. Albright, “Monthly Report of the Superintendent,” 98. Horace M. Albright to Mr. D. R. Hull, October August 1921, 11, and July 1921; National Park Service, 27, 1922, file “Report of Construction to Mr. D. R. Hull, “Crevice Mountain Ranger Station,” Historic Structure Survey (Landscape Engineering Division), from Horace M. Albright Form, 1999, Smithsonian #24YE35, LCS #50980, 4–6. (Superintendent), October 27, 1922,” box L-56, YNPA. 120. Albright, “Monthly Report of the Superintendent,” 99. Horace M. Albright to Paul P. Kiessig, Assistant August 1921, 9; Director’s Report for 1921, 171–72. Landscape Engineer, October 25, 1921, box 610-620, #470, 121. Director’s Report for 1921, 170, 189. entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “Ranger 122. Ibid., 169. Stations—Canyon,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 123. Ibid., 171, 176, 189. 100. Director’s Report for 1921, 58. 124. “From Hull, [Trip Report] Yellowstone National 101. Horace M. Albright to Mr. D. R. Hull, October Park,” July 12, 1921, 2, in folder “Construction Projects/ 27, 1922. Landscape Architecture—1921,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s 102. Horace M. Albright to Hull, Memorandum, May Office, HRC. 24, 1922, folder 2, box D-38, YNPA. 125. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 98. 103. Director’s Report for 1922, 37–38. 126. Yellowstone National Park historian Lee Whit- 104. Horace M. Albright to Hull, August 9, 1922, folder tlesey, November 2003. 2, box D-38, YNPA. 127. Stephen Mather to Horace Albright, January 10, 105. Albright, Annual Report for 1921–1922, 19. 1922, folder 2, box D-38, YNPA. 106. D. R. Hull to Horace M. Albright, July 31, 1922, 128. Albright, Annual Report for 1921–1922, 19–20. folder 1, box D-26, YNPA. 129. Ibid., 34–36. 107. D. R. Hull to Horace M. Albright, August 12, 130. Ibid., 23–24; Director’s Report for 1922, 37; and 1922, folder 1, box D-26, YNPA. Horace Albright to Daniel Hull, October 27, 1922, box 470, 108. Haines, vol. 2, 414, note 46. entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “Construc- 109. The authors are indebted to retired Yellowstone tion Projects/Landscape Architecture—1922,” Culpin’s files, Park ranger Robert Flather and his unpublished report “Slough Historian’s Office, HRC. Creek History” (October 10, 2002) for information on the 131. Horace M. Albright to Hull, February 10, 1923, Lower and Upper Slough Creek developments. Flather’s folder 3, box D-38, YNPA, and Horace M. Albright to Hull, report is located in folder “History and Archeology,” box August 9, 1922, folder 2, box D-38, YNPA. H-40, YNPA. 132. Albright, Annual Report for 1923, 29. 110. Horace Albright to Daniel Hull, May 25, 1921. 133. Albright, “Monthly Report of the Superintendent,” Copy in folder “Construction Projects/Landscape Architec- September 1924,” 10. ture, 1921,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 134. Albright, Annual Report for 1923, 28.

192 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” 135. Ibid., 31. August 4, 1926, folder 5, box D-38, YNPA. 136. Albright, Annual Report for 1924, in Director’s 159. Paul Kiessig, “Landscape Engineering in the Na- Report for 1924, 96–97. tional Parks,” 1, draft of manuscript in folder 3, box D-38, 137. Arno B. Cammerer, Acting Director, to Mr. Al- YNPA. bright, June 27, 1924, folder 3, box D-26, YNPA. 160. Ronald A. Foresta, America’s National Parks and 138. Albright, Annual Report for 1924, 9. Their Keepers (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 139. Albright, Annual Report for 1924, in Director’s 1984), 43. Report for 1924, 96, and Annual Report for 1924, 9. 161. Paul Kiessig to Horace M. Albright, December 2, 140. National Park Service, “Heart Lake Snowshoe 1922, folder 3, box D-38, YNPA. Cabin,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian 162. Horace M. Albright to Paul Kiessig, January 6, #48YE896, LCS #51007, 3–6. 1923, folder 3, box D-38, YNPA. 141. Albright, Annual Report for 1924, in Director’s 163. Lee H. Whittlesey, “Handkerchief Pool,” Yel- Report for 1924, 96. lowstone Place Names (Helena, Mont.: Montana Historical 142. National Park Service, “Heart Lake Snowshoe Society Press, 1988), 70. Cabin,” 6. 164. Kiessig, “Landscape Engineering in the National 143. National Park Service, “Cache Creek Snowshoe Parks,” 11. Cabin,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian 165. Horace M. Albright to Paul Kiessig, January 6, #48YE928, LCS #50000, 6. 1923, folder 3, box D-38, YNPA. 144. Albright, “Monthly Report of the Superintendent,” 166. Horace M. Albright to Mr. Hull, Memorandum, August 1924, 18. June 3, 1925, folder 4, box D-38, YNPA. 145. Director’s Report for 1925, 23. 167. See, for example, letters Albright wrote to the di- 146. Ibid., and Daniel R. Hull to Mr. Albright, March rector of the National Park Service in Hull’s defense on July 17, 1925, folder 4, box D-38, YNPA. 26, 1922, and July 11, 1926, in folders 2 and 3 respectively, 147. National Park Service, “Ranger Station/HS-0201 box D-38, YNPA. [West Thumb Area],” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, 168. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 163. Smithsonian #48YE998. 169. Ibid., 195–196. 148. Albright, Annual Report for 1925, in Director’s 170. Ibid., 196–197. Report for 1925, 79. 171. Ibid., 197. 149. National Park Service, “Blacktail Deer Creek 172. Ibid., 198. Snowshoe Cabin,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, 173. Vint, “Job Analysis, Assistant Landscape Archi- Smithsonian #24YE37, LCS #50915, 6. tect,” ca. June 1928, as quoted in McClelland, Building the 150. Director’s Report for 1925, 23. For a more in-depth National Parks, 199. study of the Apollinaris Spring area, see Lee H. Whittlesey, 174. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 200. “The Changing Face of Apollinaris Spring,” Yellowstone Science 175. Ibid. 11(1) (Winter 2003):2–8. 176. Horace M. Albright to Mr. Hull, March 9, 1926, 151. Hull to Albright, March 17, 1925; Daniel R. Hull and Sam T. Woodring, “Memorandum to Mr. Albright,” n.d. to Superintendent Albright, Memorandum, June 17, 1925, ca. March 1926, both in folder 5, box D-38, YNPA. folder 4, box D-38, YNPA. 177. Albright, Annual Report for 1926, in Report of 152. Albright, “Monthly Report of the Superintendent,” Director of National Park Service for 1926, 86. June 1925, 20. 178. National Park Service, “Equipment Storehouse/ 153. Horace M. Albright to Daniel R. Hull, June 27, Bunkhouse at Slough Creek Hay Ranch,” Historic Structure 1925, folder 4, box D-38, YNPA. Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian #48YE939, LCS #50933, 154. Horace M. Albright to Daniel R. Hull, July 21, 4. 1925, folder 5, box D-38, YNPA. 179. Sam T. Woodring, “Memorandum to Mr. Al- 155. Albright to Hull, July 21, 1925. bright,” n.d. ca. March 1926. 156. Albright to Hull, June 27, 1925. 180. National Park Service, “Equipment Storehouse/ 157. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 171– Bunkhouse at Slough Creek Hay Ranch,” 4. 174. 181. T. C. Vint, memorandum to Mr. Hull, June 2, 158. Gilbert Stanley Underwood to Horace Albright, 1926, folder 5, box D-38, YNPA. See also Albright, Annual

Notes to Chapter 5 193 Report for 1926, in Report of Director of National Park Service Station,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian for 1926, 86, 88. #48YE675, LCS #50495, 2,3. 182. Albright, Annual Report for 1927, 12. 200. Albright, Annual Report for 1928, 7–8. 183. National Park Service, “Lamar Buffalo Ranch 201. Other mess- and bunkhouses were built in 1929: Barn,” Single Entry Report-LCS, HS-0109, 2, [August 17, one of each at Norris Junction, a bunkhouse each at Lewis 2000]. Copy available in Yellowstone Center for Resources, River and at Madison Junction, and a messhouse at Tower Mammoth Hot Springs, Wyo. Junction. The ranger station at the South Entrance was com- 184. Albright, Annual Report for 1927, 9; National Park pleted, and a three-lane checking station was built at the East Service, “Fawn Pass Snowshoe Cabin,” Historic Structure Sur- Entrance (Roger Toll, Annual Report for 1929, in Report of vey Form, 1999, Smithsonian #48YE931, LCS #51016, 6; and Director of National Park Service for 1929, 134). National Park Service, “Mary Lake Snowshoe Cabin,” Historic 202. National Park Service, “Lamar Buffalo Ranch Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian #48YE935, LCS bunkhouse/HS-0107,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, #50941, 6. Smithsonian #48YE675, LCS #10627, 2. 185. Albright, Annual Report for 1927, 9. 203. Director’s Report for 1917, 32. 186. Ibid., 8–9. 204. Director’s Report for 1918, 10. 187. A. H. Abbott, Forest Supervisor, Gallatin National 205. Ibid., 10. Forest, to Superintendent Toll, October 13, 1930, as part of 206. Director’s Report for 1919, 29–31. the National Park Historic Structure Survey information for 207. Denise S. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Dailey Creek Snowshoe Cabin, YCR. Education of Adults, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wyo- 188. Director’s Report for 1925, 8; see Mary Shivers ming, Laramie, Wyo., 1986, 60. Culpin, The History of the Construction of the Road System in 208. Albright, Annual Report for 1919, 28–29. Yellowstone (Denver: National Park Service, 1994) for a dis- 209. Haines, vol. 2, 307–308, and note 52, 414; Vick, cussion of the roadside cleanup project funded by the John Yellowstone National Park and the Education ofAdults, 59. D. Rockefeller family. 210. Albright, Annual Report for 1920, 39. 189. Albright, Annual Report for 1927, 9. 211. Albright, Annual Report for 1921, in Director’s 190. See, for example, Albright, Annual Report for 1927, Report for 1921, 169. 10, and Annual Report for 1926, 5, for number of campers. 212. Ibid. 191. Horace Albright to Director, National Park Ser- 213. Haines, vol. 2, 308. vice, November 1, 1926, 4, at end of “Monthly Report of the 214. Albright, Annual Report for 1921–1922, 33. Superintendent,” July 1926. 215. Director’s Report for 1921, 35–36. 192. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 234. 216. Ibid., 36–37. 193. Ibid., 234–236. 217. Albright, Annual Report for 1920, 41. 194. Ibid., 244. 218. Haines, vol. 2, 304. 195. Ibid. 219. From Lemuel Garrison to Chief, Division of In- 196. National Park Service, “Messhouse/Quarters/HS- terpretation, Memorandum, October 25, 1961, in Aubrey L. 0112,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian Haines, “Memorandum of the History of Women in Uniform #48YE78, LCS #50935, 2. (National Park Service) in Yellowstone National Park, October 197. National Park Service, “Norris Road Camp Bunk- 1961,” vertical files, YNPL. house/HS-0113,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, 220. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education Smithsonian #48YE87, LCS #50936, 2. Leroy Hill, Acting of Adults, 58. Superintendent, advocated a particular floor plan for bunk- 221. Albright, Annual Report for 1920, 41. Vick asserted houses. He promoted sketches that were “a departure from the that there is some uncertainty as to where Albright first heard standard plans . . . especially in the case of the separate sleeping Bassett lecture (Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Educa- rooms planned for the bunkhouses instead of the usual ‘bull- tion of Adults, 256, note 8). pen,’ and a separate room and office of the foreman” (Leroy 222. Director’s Report for 1919, 30. Hill, Acting Superintendent, to Mr. Vint, March 24, 1927, 223. Director’s Report for 1921, 34. folder 6, box D-38, YNPA). 224. Albright, Annual Report for 1921, in Director’s 198. Albright, Annual Report for 1928, 7. Report for 1921, 163. 199. National Park Service, “Fishing Bridge Ranger 225. Horace Albright to Isabel Wasson, October 8,

194 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” 1921, as quoted in a memorandum from Lemuel Garrison 1928, folder 620.046, box 620.10-630, entry 7, RG 79, Na- to Chief, Division of Interpretation, October 25, 1961, in tional Archives. Copy in folder “Museums—2 of 2,” Culpin’s Haines, “Memorandum of the History of Women in Uni- files, Historian’s Office, HRC. form.” 249. Hubert Work to The Laura Spelman Rockefeller 226. Ibid. Memorial, February 9, 1928, folder 620.046, box 620.10-630, 227. Albright, Annual Report for 1921, in Director’s entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “Muse- Report for 1921, 163. ums—2 of 2,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 228. Albright, “Monthly Report of the Superintendent,” 250. Ibid.; Ansel F. Hall and F. R. Oastler, “Organi- June 1921, 11. zation Plan for the Educational Division of the National 229. Albright, Annual Report for 1921, in Director’s Park Service,” typescript, Interpretation Correspondence, Report for 1921, 163. 1922–1928, YNPA, as cited by Vick, Yellowstone National 230. Director’s Report for 1921, 162–163. Park and the Education of Adults, 40. 231. Albright, Annual Report for 1921–1922, 34. 251. Frank Oastler, “Report on Educational Survey 232. Ibid. National Park Service, Summer 1928,” folder 43, box 79, sub- 233. Haines, vol. 2, 303–304. series 2E, series 3, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, New 234. From the National Park Service’s “General Plan of York. Copy in folder “Education/Interpretation,” Culpin’s Administration for the Educational Division,” June 4, 1929, files, Historian’s Office, HRC. as quoted in Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Educa- 252. Director’s Report for 1924, 8. The Laura Spelman tion of Adults, 70. Rockefeller Memorial also provided funds for the construc- 235. Haines, vol. 2, 308. tion of at least two other trailside museums: one for the rim 236. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education of the Grand Canyon in Grand Canyon National Park and of Adults, 39; Haines, vol. 2, 308. the other near Bear Mountain in the Interstate Palisades Park 237. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education in New York. H. C. Bumpus, as chairman of the Committee of Adults, 38. on Museums in National Parks of the American Association 238. Haines, vol. 2, 308. of Museums, hoped that similar structures would be used by 239. Director’s Report for 1926, 6–7, 28. other agencies (“Trailside Museum - Interstate Park” William 240. From the address by a committee of the American Carr, “Blazing Nature’s Trail,” File 743, Box 79, subseries 2E, Association of Museums to the Laura Spelman Rockefeller series 3, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, New York). Memorial on June 18, 1924, as quoted in Director’s Report The illustration of the Bear Mountain Trailside Museum was for 1924, 8. similar in design to the museums built in Yellowstone; Beard- 241. Director’s Report for 1924, 9. sley Ruml to Hubert Work, March 2, 1928, folder 620.046, 242. Director’s Report for 1925, 12. box 620.10-630, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. Copy 243. Director’s Report for 1925, 13. Ansel Hall men- in folder “Museums—2 of 2,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Of- tioned the opening of a branch museum in Yellowstone, fice, HRC. “Report of the Educational Division, Ansel F. Hall, Chief 253. Ibid. Naturalist,” in Albright, Annual Report for 1926, 41. 254. “A History of the Educational Department in 244. “Report of the Educational Division, Ansel F. National Parks,” undated typescript, ca. 1930, vertical files, Hall, Chief Naturalist,” in Albright, Annual Report for 1926, YNPL, 7, as quoted in Haines, vol. 2, 310. 40–42. 255. Director’s Report for 1925, 13. 245. Albright, “Monthly Report of the Superintendent,” 256. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education July 1927, 17. of Adults, 124. 246. Horace M. Albright, Assistant Director (Field), 257. Albright, Annual Report for 1928, 8. Superintendent, Yellowstone National Park, to the Secretary 258. Horace M. Albright to Director, National Park of the Interior, January 27, 1928, folder 620.046, box 620.10- Service, October 25, 1928. Copy in folder “Museums—2 of 630, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “Mu- 2,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC, and in “Report seums—2 of 2,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. on Yellowstone Park Museum Development and New Fish 247. Ibid. Hatchery at Lake Yellowstone,” folder 1, box D-17, YNPA. 248. Secretary of the Interior to Chauncey J. Hamlin, 259. K. McCarter, “Weekly Report of Week Ending President, American Association of Museums, n.d. ca. January Sept. 22, 1928.” Copy in folder “Construction Projects/Land-

Notes to Chapter 5 195 scape Architecture—1928–1929,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s 277. Director’s Report for 1924, 35. The total number of Office, HRC. visitors to the park in 1924 was 138,352, thus slightly more 260. Toll, Annual Report for 1929, 40. than half used the lecture service at Mammoth. 261. National Register of Historic Places Inventory— 278. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education Nomination Form, “Norris, Madison, and Fishing Bridge Mu- of Adults, 65, 84–85. seums,” in Laura Soulliere Harrison, Architecture in the Parks: 279. Ibid., 103. National Historic Landmark Theme Study (Washington, D.C.: 280. Horace Albright, Preface, Ranger Naturalists’ National Park Service, Nov. 1986), 312. For a clear discussion Manual of Yellowstone National Park (Yellowstone National of the campsite legend, see Paul Schullery and Lee Whittlesey’s Park: National Park Service, 1927), ii, as quoted in Paul Schul- Myth and History in the Creation of Yellowstone National Park lery, Searching for Yellowstone: Ecology and Wonder in the Last (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003). Wilderness (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 139. 262. Albert H. Good, Park and Recreation Structures 281. Schullery, Searching for Yellowstone, 140. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999; reprint of 282. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education 1938 edition published by National Park Service), 178. of Adults, 116. 263. National Register of Historic Places Inventory— 283. Ibid. Nomination Form, “Norris, Madison, and Fishing Bridge 284. Newell F. Joyner, “An Outline of the History of Museums,” in Harrison, Architecture in the Parks, 313. Educational Activities in Yellowstone Park,” Ranger Naturalists’ 264. Ibid., 317. Manual (Yellowstone National Park: Educational Department, 265. Ibid., 318. 1929), 173–174, as quoted in Vick, Yellowstone National Park 266. Ibid. and the Education of Adults, 116. 267. Herbert Maier, “The Purpose of the Museum in 285. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education the National Parks,” Yosemite Nature Notes (May 1926): 37, of Adults, 44 and Haines, vol. 2, 310. as quoted in National Register of Historic Places Inventory— 286. H. C. Bumpus to Horace M. Albright, Septem- Nomination Form, “Norris, Madison, and Fishing Bridge ber 20, 1929, folder 620.046, box 620.10-630, entry 7, RG Museums,” in Harrison, Architecture in the Parks, 320. 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “Museums—2 of 2,” 268. National Register of Historic Places Inventory— Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Nomination Form, “Norris, Madison, and Fishing Bridge 287. Albright to Director, October 25, 1928. Museums,” in Harrison, Architecture in the Parks, 320. 288. Oastler’s mention of the stagecoach actually caused 269. Albright to Director, October 25, 1928. a bit of a brouhaha, leading to a Congressional inquiry ques- 270. Albright, Annual Report for 1928, 8. tioning the park’s preservation of the stagecoach. Park officials 271. Horace M. Albright to Director, National Park assured Congress that the stagecoach was only outside during Service, August 30, 1928, folder 601.01, box 503-601.13, the summer season, and would be exhibited indoors and given #462, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “Ar- preservation treatment if a large museum was built at Mam- chitectural History,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. moth (Roger Toll to Horace Albright, August 23, 1929, entry 272. Horace M. Albright to the Director, National Park 7, RG 79, National Archives). Service, September 27, 1928, folder 601.01, box 503-601.13, 289. Oastler, “Report on Educational Survey National #462, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “Ar- Park Service, Summer 1928.” chitectural History,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 290. Toll, Annual Report for 1929, 41. 273. Albright to Director, August 30, 1928. 291. Ibid. 274. Arno B. Cammerer, Acting Director, to Horace 292. Ibid. M. Albright, Assistant Director (Field), National Park Service, 293. Director’s Report for 1917, 34. September 20, 1928, folder 601.01, box 503-601.13, #462, 294. Ibid., emphasis added. entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “Architec- 295. Director’s Report for 1918, 44; Albright, Annual tural History,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Report for 1918, 39. 275. Horace M. Albright to Kenneth Chorley, Octo- 296. Albright, Annual Report for 1918, 39. ber 13, 1928, folder 620.046, box 620.10-630, entry 7, RG 297. Ibid., 41. 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “Museums—2 of 2,” 298. See James A. Pritchard, Preserving Yellowstone’s Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Natural Conditions: Science and the Perception of Nature (Lin- 276. Albright to Director, October 25, 1928. coln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999).

196 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” 299. Thomas R. Dunlap, “Wildlife, Science, and the 4. Director’s Report for 1931, 1–2. National Parks, 1920–1940,” Pacific Historical Review 59(2) 5. William C. Tweed, Parkitecture: A History of Rustic (May 1990), 189. Building Design in the National Park System, 1916–1942, 78, 300. Ibid., 187–202. unpublished manuscript, vertical file “History—YNP—Struc- 301. Director’s Report for 1926, 14 tures,” Yellowstone National Park Library [hereafter YNPL]. 302. Director’s Report for 1929, 25–26. 6. Ibid., 1–2. 303. Pritchard, Preserving Yellowstone’s Natural Condi- 7. Director’s Report for 1932, 1. tions, 134–136. 8. James A. Pritchard, Preserving Yellowstone’s Natural 304. Yellowstone National Park, Yellowstone’s Northern Conditions: Science and the Perception of Nature (Lincoln: Range: Complexity and Change in a Wildland Ecosystem (Mam- University of Nebraska Press, 1999), 96. moth Hot Springs, Wyo.: National Park Service), 7. According 9. Alice K. Wondrak, (Do Not) Feed the Bears: Policy, to Pritchard (Preserving Yellowstone’s Natural Conditions, 138), Culture and the Historical Narrative of the Yellowstone Bear, 67,440 elk were removed between 1934 and 1967 by means Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., of live-shipping, direct reductions, and high hunter quotas 2002, 137. Copy in YNPL. outside the park boundary. 10. Aubrey L. Haines, The Yellowstone Story: A History 305. Director’s Report for 1922, 23, and Director’s Report of Our First National Park, revised ed. (Niwot, Colorado: for 1924, 35. University Press of Colorado, 1996), vol. 2, 460, [hereafter 306. Director’s Report for 1924, 97–98. Haines, vol. 1 or 2]. 307. Thomas Cochran to Arthur Wood, December 14, 11. Ibid., 460–461. 1925, folder 772, box 83, subseries 2E, series 3, Rockefeller 12. Toll, Annual Report for 1930, 2; Toll, Annual Report Archive Center, Tarrytown, New York. Copy in folder “His- for 1931, 1. tory—Boundaries,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 13. Toll, Annual Report for 1932, 2; Toll, Annual Report 308. Director’s Report for 1926, 29. for 1933, 2. 309. Director’s Report for 1929, 4. 14. Guy Edwards to Roger Toll, August 31, 1933, folder 310. Ibid., 4–5. 5, box D-26, Yellowstone National Park Archives (hereafter 311. Oastler, “Report on Educational Survey National YNPA). Park Service, Summer 1928.” 15. “Public Number 5 and Executive Order 6101 Af- 312. Schullery, Searching for Yellowstone, 144. fecting the Civilian Conservation Corps,” as found in Matthew 313. Albright, Annual Report for 1918, 41–42. A. Redinger, The Civilian Conservation Corps as a Tool of the 314. Albright, Annual Report for 1922, 40. National Park Service: The Development of Glacier and Yellow- 315. Albright, Annual Report for 1925, as part of stone National Parks, 1933–1942, (M.A. thesis, University of Director’s Report for 1925, 79. Montana, 1988), 125–126. 316. Albright, Annual Report for 1921, as part of 16. Redinger, The Civilian Conservation Corps, 103. Director’s Report for 1921, 179. 17. Edmund B. Rogers, Annual Report for 1936, 31. 317. For excellent studies of the park’s policies regarding 18. Linda Flint McClelland, Building the National Parks: bears see Schullery, Searching for Yellowstone, and Paul Schul- Historic Landscape Design and Construction (Baltimore: Johns lery, The Bears of Yellowstone (Worland, Wyo.: High Plains Hopkins University Press, 1998), 328. Publishing Co., 1992). 19. Timothy Mann’s study is cited and discussed in Redinger, The Civilian Conservation Corps. 20. Redinger, The Civilian Conservation Corps, CHAPTER 6 60–61. 1. Roger W. Toll, Annual Report for Yellowstone National 21. Toll, Annual Report for 1936, 31. Park, 1930, 1, Yellowstone National Park Library (hereafter 22. Redinger, The Civilian Conservation Corps, Annual Report for [year]). 58–59. 2. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Ser- 23. Ibid., 62–66. vice to the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 24. Ibid., 61–62, 67–71. 30, 1931 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 25. Ibid., 79. 1931), 2, cited hereafter as Director’s Report for [year]. 26. Stephen J. Pyne, Fire in America (Princeton: Princ- 3. Director’s Report for 1932, 1. eton University Press, 1982), 360, as quoted Redinger, The

Notes to Chapter 6 197 Civilian Conservation Corps, 82. 46. Ibid., 10–12, 14–15, 17, 18. 27. Redinger, The Civilian Conservation Corps, 85. 47. Guy D. Edwards, Acting Superintendent, to Mr. 28. Ibid., 71–72. Baggley, Chief Ranger, March 11, 1933, folder “Campsites 29. Ibid., 75–76. and Campgrounds,” box D-156, YNPA. 30. Ibid., 54. 48. Frank Mattson, “Report to the Chief Architect 31. In October 1932, approximately 7,600 acres were Through the Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park, added to the park by presidential executive order in an area Period July 26 to August 29, 1934,” folder “1934 Reports,” extending 3.5 miles from Gardiner toward the north and box D-37, YNPA. west. President Hoover signed the proclamation for inclusion 49. George F. Baggley to John D. Coffman, September of the land on October 20, 1932. The land, set aside under a 4, 1934, folder 5, box D-26, YNPA. Congressional Act of May 26, 1926, was to provide additional 50. Roger W. Toll to The Director, June 26, 1935, folder winter grazing for the antelope and elk. The addition covered 4, box D-29, YNPA. all of the land except a 38.2-acre parcel owned and operated 51. Frank E. Mattson and Robert G. Hall, Assistant as a slaughterhouse ranch by Albert Hoppe (Section 14, Landscape Architect, “Report to the Chief Architect, Period T9S, R7E, Montana Principal Meridian), which the govern- May 26 to June 25, 1935,” folder “1935 Reports (2),” box ment and the Game Preservation Company finally bought D-37, YNPA. in September 1933 (Toll, Annual Report for 1933, 4). For a 52. Anonymous letter to Yellowstone National Park complete discussion of the newly acquired land, see Haines, officials, n.d., ca. 1930s, copy in folder “Campgrounds,” vol. 2, 332, and Toll, Annual Report for 1933, 4. See Redinger, Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. The Civilian Conservation Corps, 53–54 for a discussion of the 53. Mrs. Miriam C. England to Charles West, Under nursery. According to Redinger, the 18-acre nursery produced Secretary of the Interior, ca. July 12, 1937, folder 600.03, 500,000 seedlings a year from a variety of species: “lodgepole box 1731 600.02-601.18, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives. pines, Douglas firs, birches, willows, aspens, and poplars.” The Copy in folder “Campgrounds,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s nursery closed in May 1941. Office, HRC. 32. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 345. 54. Mattson and Hall, “Report to the Chief Architect, 33. Toll, “Monthly Report of the Superintendent,” Period May 26 to June 25, 1935.” July 1933, as quoted in Redinger, The Civilian Conservation 55 Mary Shivers Culpin, “Campgrounds,” 5. Copy Corps, 55. in folder “Campgrounds,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, 34. Redinger, The Civilian Conservation Corps, 55. HRC. 35. Robert Fechner, “Objectives,”15, as quoted in 56. Ibid. Redinger, The Civilian Conservation Corps, 56. 57. Tweed, Parkitecture, 79. 36. Ibid. 58. Ibid., 80. 37. Fred T. Johnston, “Plans for the Restoration and 59. Ibid., 55, 58. Regulation of Camp Grounds in Yellowstone National Park,” 60. Toll, Annual Report for 1930, 15. January 19, 1933, 3. Copy in folder “Campgrounds,” Marcy 61. Tweed, Parkitecture, 55, 90; McClelland, Building Culpin’s files [hereafter Culpin’s files], Historian’s Office, Yel- the National Parks, 330. lowstone Heritage and Research Center, Yellowstone National 62. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 292. Park, Montana [hereafter HRC]. 63. Ibid., 293. 38. E. P. Meinecke, “Camp Planning and Camp Recon- 64. “General Planning,” Tentative Outline, February struction,” [1934?], 4–5, vertical file “Recreation,” YNPL. 1929, RG 79, National Archives, as quoted in McClelland, 39. Ibid., 4. Building the National Parks, 293–4. 40. Ibid., 6. 65. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 301– 41. Ibid., 16–18. 302. 42. E. P. Meinecke, “A Camp Ground Policy,” [1932?], 66. Ethan Carr, Wilderness by Design: Landscape Archi- 15, vertical file “Recreation,” YNPL. tecture and the National Park Service (Lincoln: University of 43. Johnston, “Plans for the Restoration and Regulation Nebraska Press, 1998), 239. of Camp Grounds in Yellowstone National Park,” 4–5. 67. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 294. 44. Ibid., 5. 68. Thomas Vint, “National Park Service: Master 45. Ibid., 8. Plans,” Planning and Civic Comment (April/June 1946), as

198 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” quoted in McClelland, Building the National Parks, 304. 13. 69. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 304. 78. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 300. 70. Carr, Wilderness by Design, 241–242. 79. Gilmore D. Clarke, “Report to Accompany Plan 71. Memorandum for the Director [Horace M. Al- of Mammoth Hot Springs Area, Yellowstone National Park, bright], February 16, 1932, transmitted with a letter from June 1930,” 7, box L-56, YNPA. Roger W. Toll to Director Albright, March 14, 1932, filed 80. See page 7 of the 1933 master plan for Clarke’s vision “Yellowstone General file No. 169, Trees-Insect Control- of the Mammoth Hot Springs area. Surves-Etc., F.Y. 1932,” as quoted in the narrative “Developed 81. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 300–01. and Special Areas,” of the master plan, 1939, YNPA. 82. A. C. Stinson, Chief Engr. Insp. Supt., “Report of 72. Ibid. Reconnaissance Survey of Mammoth Entrance Roads,” Janu- 73. Because there was some confusion as to the process ary 31, 1930, as quoted in Clarke, “Report to Accompany of formally designating special areas, the areas Toll designated Plan of Mammoth Hot Springs Area,” 4. in 1932 were indicated as “proposed” on the revised master 83. Copies were sent to “Yellowstone Park Lodge and plan of 1939 (except for the Old Faithful and Canyon–Tower Camps Company; Yellowstone Park Hotel and Transporta- Fall sacred areas, which were indicated as “existing”). The tion Companies; Park Curio Shop; George Whittaker; J. E. revised 1939 master plan also recommended including seven Haynes, President of Haynes Picture Shops, Inc.; American special areas as wilderness, four research areas, and seventeen Association of Museums (via Dr. Bumpus); Mr. C. A. Lindsley, sacred areas. The seven special areas as wilderness were 1) Postmaster; Mr. Robert Lathrop, Weather Bureau; Mr. C. F. Upper Yellowstone–Snake River, 2) Lamar River–Mirror Capes, Bureau of Public Roads; Mr. Herbert Maier, Architect Plateau, 3) Bechler River–Pitchstone and Madison Plateaus, for the American Association of Museums; Mr. John Nolen, 4) Central Plateau, 5) Washburn Range, 6) Gallatin Range, Harvard Square, Cambridge, Mass.” (“Memo to Files,” August and 7) Northern. Recommended research areas included 1) 28, 1930, file 329, folder “FY 1931, FY 1932, Landscape White–Tern–Fern–Wapiti lakes, 2) Specimen Ridge Fossil For- Division,” box D-66, YNPA). est, 3) Specimen Creek–Big Horn Peak Fossil Forest. Number 84. Kenneth C. McCarter, Assistant Landscape Archi- 4, the Electric Peak area, should be omitted, the narrative of tect, to John Nolen, August 28, 1930, file 329, folder “FY the revised master plan argued. Sacred areas were 1) Mammoth 1931, FY 1932, Landscape Division,” box D-66, YNPA. Hot Springs, 2) Norris Geyser Basin, 3) Midway and Lower 85. Vernon Goodwin, Yellowstone Park Lodge and Geyser Basins, 4) Upper, or Old Faithful, Geyser Basin, 5) Camps Company, to Roger W. Toll, September 3, 1930, file West Thumb Hot Springs, 6) Yellowstone Canyon–Tower 329, folder “FY 1931, FY 1932, Landscape Division,” box Fall, 7) National Park Mountain, 8) Petrified Tree, 9) Obsid- D-66, YNPA. ian Cliff, 10) Roaring Mountain, 11) Frying Pan Spring, 86. W. M. Nichols, Assistant to the President, to Roger 12) Monument Geyser Basin–Beryl Spring–Artist Paintpots, W. Toll, August 28, 1930, file 329, folder “FY 1931, FY 1932, 13) Terrace Spring, 14) Shoshone Geyser Basin, 15) Heart Landscape Division,” box D-66, YNPA. Lake Geyser Basin, 16) Mud Volcano–Dragons Mouth, and 87. Ibid. 17) Lone Star Geyser (“Recommendations,” narrative to the 88. Ibid. master plan, 1939, YNPA). 89. George Whittaker, Manager, to Mr. Kenneth Mc- 74. David A. Jay, “The History of Masterplanning Carter, September 1, 1930, file 329, folder “FY 1931, FY in Yellowstone,” unpublished paper, December 22, 1986, 1932, Landscape Division,” box D-66, YNPA. 2, copy in folder “Master Plans,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s 90. Anna K. Pryor, Manager, to Mr. Toll, September Office, HRC. 30, 1930, file 329, folder “FY 1931, FY 1932, Landscape 75. U.S. Department of the Interior Office of National Division,” box D-66, YNPA. Parks, Buildings & Reservations, The Master Plan for Yellow- 91. J. E. Haynes to Mr. Toll, August 21, 1930, file stone National Park, Coordinated by Branch of Plans & Design, 329, folder “FY 1931, FY 1932, Landscape Division,” box 1933, YNPL. Tweed (Parkitecture, 55) discusses Carpenter’s D-66, YNPA. background. 92. Kenneth McCarter, Memorandum to Mr. Toll, Au- 76. This is one of four things David A. Jay notes in “The gust 28, 1930, file 329, folder “FY 1931, FY 1932, Landscape History of Masterplanning in Yellowstone,” 3. Division,” box D-66, YNPA. 77. U.S. Department of the Interior Office of National 93. Tweed, Parkitecture, 57. Parks, Buildings & Reservations, Master Plan for Yellowstone, 94. Thomas C. Vint to Mr. Director, September 24,

Notes to Chapter 6 199 1930, file 329, folder “FY 1931, FY 1932, Landscape Divi- 111. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 429, sion,” box D-66, YNPA. 432. 95. H. C. Bumpus to Roger W. Toll, September 9, 1930, 112. Ibid., 335, 433–441. file 329, folder “FY 1931, FY 1932, Landscape Division,” 113. Good, Park and Recreation Structures, 5. box D-66, YNPA. 114. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 394. 96. The only parts of the plan to be built, according to 115. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 398. Jay, were “[t]he esplanade and a French Provincial style post 116. Carr, Wilderness by Design, 145. office” (Jay, “The History of Masterplanning in Yellowstone,” 117. See, for example, Roger W. Toll to Mr. Jacob M. 3). Jay’s assessment, although technically incorrect—the apart- Hoffman, June 18, 1931, file 329, folder “FY 1932, FY 1932 ment house for park employees was built in 1935—is not far Landscape Division,” box D-66, YNPA. from the mark. The phrase “a satisfactory plan toward which 118. “Yellowstone National Park, Construction Report to work” is from Toll’s letter to Director Albright, March 26, on Two Snowshoe Cabins—Lamar & N. Bdry. Project F.P. 1931, file 329, folder “FY 1931, FY 1932, Landscape Divi- 140,” October 30, 1936, folder 4, box D-25, YNPA. sion,” box D-66, YNPA. 119. “Construction of Physical Improvements—Out- 97. Thomas C. Vint to Roger W. Toll, March 18, 1931, line of Work. Yellowstone National Park, 1929, 1930, and file 329, folder “FY 1931, FY 1932, Landscape Division,” 1932,” file “Landscape Division,” entry 7, RG 79, National box D-66, YNPA. Archives, as quoted in Mary Shivers Culpin’s “Ranger Stations/ 98. Roger W. Toll to Director Albright, March 26, 1931, Patrol Cabins, Yellowstone NP,” April 23, 1997, unpublished file 329, folder “FY 1931, FY 1932, Landscape Division,” document, Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. box D-66, YNPA. 120. Leroy Hill to Mr. Vint, March 24, 1927, folder 99. Vint to Toll, March 18, 1931. 6, box D-38, YNPA. 100. These modifications may also show up in the 121. Yellowstone Plan No. 328, microfiche, YNP master plan of 1935. The Yellowstone National Park Archives Maintenance Division, as cited in Lon Johnson and Christine does not have a copy of that master plan. Whitacre, “Snowshoe Cabins Yellowstone National Park,” 101. U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Na- [no date, 2000?], 4, unpublished document, Culpin’s files, tional Parks, Buildings & Reservations, Master Plan for Yel- Historian’s Office, HRC. lowstone. 122. Johnson and Whitacre, “Snowshoe Cabins Yel- 102. See the master plan for 1939 and 1940 for Yel- lowstone National Park,” 4. lowstone National Park. The master plan for 1940 had a 123. Yellowstone Plan No. 3037, microfiche, YNP description for the “North Entrance Area” on page 14. The Maintenance Division, as cited in Johnson and Whitacre, map is called “North Entrance Part of the Master Plan for “Snowshoe Cabins Yellowstone National Park,” 4. Yellowstone National Park, 1940.” 124. National Park Service, “Miller Creek Snowshoe 103. U.S. Department of the Interior Office of National Cabin,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian Parks, Buildings & Reservations, Master Plan for Yellowstone, #48YE936, LCS #51028, 6. “Bridge Bay.” 125. Ibid., 4. 104. U.S. Department of the Interior Office of National 126. Ibid., 6. Parks, Buildings & Reservations, Master Plan for Yellowstone, 127. Ibid., 6–7. “Canyon Area Proposed Development.” 128. Guy Edwards to Horace Albright, June 11, 1931, 105. Tweed, Parkitecture, 56. and Guy Edwards to Horace Albright, August 13, 1931, file 106. Laura Soulliere Harrison, Architecture in the Parks: 620-008, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives, as quoted in National Historic Landmark Theme Study (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, “Fern Lake Snowshoe Cabin,” Historic National Park Service, 1986), 6. Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian #48YE932, LCS 107. Ibid. #51021, 6. 108. Ibid. 129. National Park Service, “Fern Lake Snowshoe 109. Ibid., 7. Cabin,” 6. 110. Randall J. Biallas, “Foreword,” in Park and Rec- 130. National Park Service, “Upper Miller Creek Buf- reation Structures, by Albert H. Good (New York: Princeton falo Herder’s Cabin,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Architectural Press, 1999; reprint of 1938 edition published Smithsonian #48YE942, LCS #51018, 5, 6. by National Park Service), i. 131. “Yellowstone National Park Construction Report

200 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” on Two Snowshoe Cabins,” October 30, 1936. LCS #10624, 2; National Park Service, “Northeast Entrance 132. National Park Service, “Buffalo Plateau Snowshoe Station/HS-0254,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Cabin,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian Smithsonian #48YE, LCS #10625, 2 #24YE34, LCS #51017, 6. 144. The Bureau of Fisheries was alerted to the new 133. National Park Service, “Cold Creek Snowshoe policy in regard to its planned fish hatchery buildings at Cabin,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian Lake. The other design decision involved the switch from the #48YE929, LCS #51020, 6. “dull brown stain” to using a grey-green color on most of the 134. National Park Service, “Blacktail Deer Creek buildings to be built in the future. The Bureau of Fisheries’ Snowshoe Cabin and Barn,” Historic Structure Survey Form, Regional Director was directed to paint all of the new build- 1999, Smithsonian #24YE37, LCS #50915 and #50914, ings at Lake grey-green, and within a short time he would be 6–7. In 1935, a snowshoe cabin at Cougar Creek northwest expected to paint the existing fish hatchery buildings grey- of Madison Junction was built, as was a cabin at Pelican green (Paul Brown to Fred Foster, January 17, 1940, file “Fish Creek in 1937. Both cabins followed standard designs and Hatchery Part 2, January 1, 1940 to December 31, 1943,” are extant (National Park Service “Cougar Creek Snowshoe box D-157, YNPA. Cabin,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian 145. C. A. Lord, Engineer, “Final Report Reconstruc- #48YE930, LCS #51004). tion Checking Station and Equipment Gardiner Checking 135. “Lake Fish Hatchery Historic District,” National Station, Project No. F.F. 601,” folder 6, box D-25, YNPA. Register of Historic Places Nomination Sheet, Draft 1/19/01, 146. Ibid. 2–6, Historian’s Office, HRC. 147. “Lookout—Mount Holmes, Project #832,” Re- 136. Guy D. Edwards to Mr. Toll, August 9 1930, file port of Progress of Approved Construction Projects of Fiscal 329, folder “FY 1932, FY 1932 Landscape Division,” box Years 1931 and 1932 Built During Season of 1931, and K. D-66, YNPA. C. McCarter and H. W. Baker, “Report to the Chief Land- 137. Roger Toll to Thomas Vint, August 23, 1930, and scape Architect Through The Superintendent of Yellowstone Thomas Vint to Roger Toll, September 8, 1930, file 329, folder National Park, June 1, 1931, 5, both in folder “Construc- “FY 1932, FY 1932 Landscape Division,” box D-66, YNPA. tion Projects/Landscape Architecture–1931–1934,” Culpin’s Copy in folder “Construction Projects/Landscape Architec- files, Historian’s Office, HRC. The information regarding ture–1930,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Mt. Sheridan’s lookout tower is from Toll, Annual Report 138. Good as quoted in McClelland, Building the Na- for 1930, 14. The annual report establishes that a tower was tional Parks, 439–440. built but it does not mention where; that information can 139. Thomas Vint to Guy Edwards, April 27, 1931, be found in Toll, “Monthly Report of the Superintendent,” file 329, folder “FY 1932, FY 1932 Landscape Division,” box August 1930, 6. D-66, YNPA; K.C. McCarter and Howard Baker, “Report to 148. Toll, Annual Report for 1931, 14; Rogers, Annual the Chief Landscape Architect Through the Superintendent Report for 1938, 33. of Yellowstone National Park, May 9–16, 1931,” copy in 149. Sanford Hill, “Monthly Narrative Report to the folder “Construction Projects/Landscape Architecture–1930,” Chief Architect,” August 26–September 30, 1937, 17, folder Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. “Landscaping and Landscape Architects,” box L-56, YNPA. 140. Sanford Hill, Resident Landscape Architect, “Nar- 150. Sanford Hill, “Special Report to the Chief Archi- rative Report on Yellowstone National Park,” July 1939, box tect,” March 3 to March 15, 1938, 5–6, folder “Landscaping L-56, YNPA. and Landscape Architects,” box L-56, YNPA. 141. F. Mattson to Mr. Toll, Memo, July 3, 1934, folder 151. “Final Report, One Primary and Three Secondary 6, box D-26, YNPA. Fire Lookouts, Project O.P. 267,” December 30, 1942, folder 142. Roger W. Toll, “Memorandum to Operators,” July 6, box D-35, YNPA. 9, 1934, folder 6, box D-26, YNPA. 152. Sanford Hill, “Narrative Report on Yellowstone 143. Toll, Annual Report for 1932, 18; National Park National Park,” June 1939, 10, folder “Landscaping and Service, “West Yellowstone Ranger Station/HS-0133,” His- Landscape Architects,” box L-56, YNPA. toric Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian #48YE, 153. “Final Report, One Primary and Three Secondary LCS #10650, 1, 2; Toll, Annual Report for 1935, 17; National Fire Lookouts, December 30, 1942. Park Service, “Cooke Ranger Station/Residence/HS-0251,” 154. “Apollinaris Spring Comfort Station,” Classified Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian #48YE, Structure Field Inventory Report, copy in folder “94 Comfort

Notes to Chapter 6 201 Station Apollinaris Springs,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, of the chips used in the sidewalk, however; he believed they HRC; Thomas Vint to Joseph Joffe, Assistant to the Super- lent a “rough appearance” to the surface. He also thought the intendent, July 18, 1931, file 329, folder “FY 1932, FY 1932 top dressing should have been a finer aggregate, and he believed Landscape Division,” box D-66, YNPA. additional sidewalks should have been built for pedestrian 155. “Comfort Station/HS-0201,” National Park Ser- travel. (Sanford Hill, “Report on Yellowstone National Park, vice—Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian September, 1938,” Box D-38, YNPA.) The road project, #48YE998, LCS #50560, 2; the hand-written note on the combined with the development of the cottages behind the top of page 1 of the survey form indicates that the structure Mammoth Hotel and the improvements and extension of the was moved to the Mammoth campground in 2000. This is Mammoth Auto Campground, made for a busy construction the only extant structure of the original four. period. (Rogers, Annual Report for 1939, 2.) 156. Roger W. Toll to Thomas C. Vint, July 17, 1930, 169. Rogers, Annual Report for 1935, 17; Edmund B. file 329, folder “FY 1932, FY 1932 Landscape Division,” box Rogers to the Director, June 28, 1939, copy in folder “Lamar D-66, YNPA. Buffalo Ranch,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 157. Kenneth C. McCarter to Roger W. Toll, Memo- 170. “Lamar Buffalo Ranch Asst. Buffalo Keeper’s randum, July 22, 1930, file 329, folder “FY 1932, FY 1932 House,” Single Entry Report—LCS, HS-0108, [August 17, Landscape Division,” box D-66, YNPA. 2000], 3, copy available in YCR. 158. Guy D. Edwards, Acting Superintendent, to 171. Rogers to Director, June 28, 1939. Thomas C. Vint, April 2, 1931, file 329, folder “FY 1932, FY 172. Ibid. 1932 Landscape Division,” box D-66, YNPA. Copy in folder 173. National Park Service, “Lamar Buffalo Ranch “Construction Projects/Landscape Architecture—1930– Generator House/HS-0273,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1934,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 1999, Smithsonian #48YE, LCS #10630, 1–3; National Park 159. Toll, Annual Report for 1933, 10. Service, “Lamar Buffalo Ranch Fire Hose Houses #1 and #2/ 160. Kenneth McCarter to Thomas Vint, May 21, HS-0996, HS-0997,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, 1933, folder 5, box D-26, YNPA. Smithsonian #48YE, LCS #101347 and #101346, 1, 2. 161. Guy D. Edwards to W.G. Carnes, March 16, 1934, 174. National Park Service, “Stephens Creek Adminis- folder 5, box D-26, YNPA. tration Area Residence/HS-0102,” Historic Structure Survey 162. Frank E. Mattson, “Report to the Chief Architect,” Form, 1999, Smithsonian #24 YE, LCS #51012, 2–4; Guy D. June 26–July 20, 1935, box L-56, YNPA. By 1937, Gebhardt Edwards, Acting Superintendent, to Mr. T. C. Vint, January had taken over supervision of the EWC architectural work and 4, 1934, folder 5, box D-26, YNPA. became Associate Architect. 175. Roger W. Toll to Dr. H. C. Bumpus, July 16, 163. R. Laurie Simmons and Thomas H. Simmons, 1930, file “Museums,” box 471, 620.01-630, entry 7, RG National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Mammoth 79, National Archives. Copy in folder “Museums, 2 of 2,” Hot Springs, Draft, July 6, 2000, 27–28. Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 164. Edmund Rogers, “Annual Report of Roads and 176. Bumpus to Horace M. Albright, telegram, July 15, Trails Construction Activities for the Fiscal Year June 30, 1930, file “Museums,” box 471, 620.01-630, entry 7, RG 79, 1936,” file “631 Construction Under Road Budget Program National Archives. Copy in folder “Museums, 2 of 2,” Culpin’s Part 1, Jan. 1, 1936 to December 31, 1939,” box D-13, files, Historian’s Office, HRC. YNPA. 177. Albright to Roger W. Toll, telegram, July 16, 1930, 165. Sanford Hill, “Monthly Narrative Report to Chief and Roger W. Toll to Dr. H. C. Bumpus, July 16, 1930, both Architect,” May 3–May 20, 1937, box L-56, YNPA. in file “Museums,” box 471, 620.01-630, entry 7, RG 79, 166. Howard W. Baker, Assistant Landscape Architect, National Archives. Copy in folder “Museums, 2 of 2,” Culpin’s “Report to the Chief Architect on Yellowstone National Park,” files, Historian’s Office, HRC. June 5–June 22, 1937, box L-56, YNPA. 178. National Park Service, “Fishing Bridge Mu- 167. Simmons and Simmons, National Register Nomi- seum,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian nation, Mammoth Hot Springs, Draft, 27–28. #48YE675, LCS #50573, 3. 168. Ibid., 29–30. By September 1938, the Mammoth 179. Ibid, 2. road project was nearly complete. Superintendent Rogers 180. Good, Park and Recreation Structures, 177. found a “much improved appearance at park headquarters.” 181. R. W. T. [Roger Toll] to [Kenneth] McCarter, Landscape Architect Sanford Hill was not pleased with the size Memorandum, August 31, 1933, folder 5, box D-26,

202 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” YNPA. Shrine/HS-0983,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, 182. National Park Service, “Naturalist’s Residence,” Smithsonian #48YE, LCS #10649, 2. Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian 207. Toll, Annual Report for 1933, 10; McClelland, #48YE675, LCS #50574, 2. Building the National Parks, 409; Lee Whittlesey, Wonderland 183. National Park Service, “Comfort Station/HS- Nomenclature, (unpublished manuscript, 1988), 588, copy 0116,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian available in YNPL. #48YE, LCS #10622, 2; National Park Service, “Norris Barn/ 208. National Park Service, “Natural Bridge Sign and HS-0118,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithson- Kiosk,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian ian #48YE820, LCS #10621, 2. #48YE, LCS #[?], 2. 184. Joseph Joffe to Director, July 14, 1931, box 1737, 209. Good, Park and Recreation Structures, Part 2, entry 7, RG 79, National Archives, as cited in National Park 175. Service, “Lake Comfort Station/HS-0197,” Historic Structure 210. H. C. Bumpus, Trailside Notes for the Motorist Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian #48YE852, LCS #50601, and Hiker: Mammoth to Norris Geyser Basin, Number One, 2.) [Yellowstone Park, Wyoming]: National Park Service, 1930, 185. National Park Service, “Lake Ranger Station/HS- in Bumpus, H. C., Rare Separates, YNPA. Trailside Notes 0191,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian were added for Mammoth-to-Old Faithful in 1933, Fishing #48YE852, LCS #10636, 3. The octagonal room’s integ- Bridge Museum-to-Mammoth Hot Springs in 1936, and Old rity—spoiled at some point in the history of the building—was Faithful-to-Yellowstone Lake and Fishing Bridge Museum restored in a major restoration effort in the mid-1980s. in 1939. 186. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 400. 211. R. M. Taylor to H. C. Bumpus, postal card, Sep- 187. Ibid., 252, and note 7, 547. tember 1929, card found in Trailside Notes for the Motorist, 188. Ibid., 254. Yellowstone Education Department, 1929, in Bumpus, H. 189. Good, Park and Recreation Structures, Part 2, C., “Trailside Notes for the Motorist and Hiker, 10 booklets 210. dated from 1929–1939,” Rare Separates, YNPA. 190. National Park Service, “Fishing Bridge Amphi- 212. Edward N. Jones, “Report on Yellowstone Park Ed- theater,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian ucational Activities,” as quoted in Denise S. Vick, Yellowstone #48YE675, 2. National Park and the Education of Adults, Ph.D. dissertation, 191. Ibid., 1. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo., 1986, 119. 192. Toll, Annual Report for 1934, 8. 213. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education 193. Toll, Annual Report for 1935, 7. of Adults, 119. 194. Rogers, Annual Report for 1936, 12; Rogers, Annual 214. Jones, “Report on Yellowstone Park Educational Report for 1937, 16; Rogers, Annual Report for 1938, 15. Activities,” 9, as quoted in Vick, Yellowstone National Park 195. Toll, Annual Report for 1935, 7. Concessioner and the Education of Adults, 119. employees in those days were commonly known as “savages” 215. Hermon C. Bumpus, “Outdoor Education: The —a self-moniker referring to their location in the “wilderness” Part Played By Our National Parks,” Hobbies 10(10), June of the national parks. 1930, 326, Bumpus, Hermon C., “Outdoor Education,” 196. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 254. vertical files, YNPL. 197. Ibid., 249–250. 216. Director’s Report for 1931, 17. 198. Ibid., 364. 217. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education 199. Ibid. of Adults, 120. 200. Good, Park and Recreation Structures, Part 2, 218. Fred J. Foster, “Report of Fish-Cultural Activities,” 169. in Director’s Report for 1930, 146. 201. Ibid., 169–170. 219. Toll, Annual Report for 1931, 13. 202. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 250. 220. Ibid. 203. Ibid., 252. 221. Christine Whitacre, “Otter Creek Bear-Feeding 204. Ibid., 251. Station,” no date, archeological report, 3, copy in folder “Bear 205. Good, Park and Recreation Structures, Part 2, Feeding Grounds–Otter Creek,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s 176. Office, HRC. 206. National Park Service, “Obsidian Cliff Nature 222. C. A. Lord, Park Engineer, “Final Report, Loop

Notes to Chapter 6 203 Betterment-Project #525.6, Otter Creek Road and Bear Feed- tions, 143. ing Ground,” January 26, 1932, 2, as quoted in Whitacre, 241. . 223. Roger W. Toll to Mr. McCarter, Memorandum, 242. Pritchard, Preserving Yellowstone’s Natural Condi- August 23, 1930, file 329, folder “FY 1932, FY 1932 Land- tions, 87. scape Division,” box D-66, YNPA. 243. George M. Wright, Joseph S. Dixon, and Ben H. 224. Toll, Annual Report for 1932, 3. Thompson, Fauna of the National Parks of the United States, 225. Toll, Annual Report for 1933, 3–4. Fauna Series No. 1, May 1932 (Washington, D.C.: Govern- 226. Toll, Annual Report for 1935, 13. ment Printing Office, 1933), iv. 227. Bears Playground was located near a small pond 244. Ibid., 3–4. “just west of the bridge that crosses the Firehole River on the 245. Ibid., 82–84. Grand Loop Road downstream from Kepler Cascades (1.5 246. Ibid., 84. miles from Old Faithful)” [Lee H. Whittlesey, Yellowstone 247. See “An Act to Establish a National Park Service, Place Names (Helena, Mont: The Montana Historical Society and for Other Purposes,” 64th Cong., 1st Sess., H.R. 15522. Press, 1988), 21]. For a good discussion of the issues surrounding the dichoto- 228. Mattson, “Report to the Chief Architect, Period mous message, see Paul Schullery, Searching for Yellowstone: July 26–August 29, 1934.” Ecology and Wonder in the Last Wilderness (Boston: Houghton 229. Rogers, Annual Report for 1936, 20. Mifflin Company, 1997), chapter 8. 230. Ibid. 248. George M. Wright and Ben H. Thompson, Fauna 231. Rogers, Annual Report for 1937, 26. of the National Parks of the United States: Wildlife Management 232. Rogers, Annual Report for 1938, 15. in the National Parks. Fauna Series No. 2, July 1934 (Washing- 233. ; Kerry Gunther and Mark Biel, eds., Yel- 249. Mattson, “Report to the Chief Architect, Period lowstone National Park Bear Information Book (Yellowstone July 26–August 29, 1934,” and Wright and Thompson, Fauna National Park, Wyo.: Yellowstone Center for Resources Bear Series No. 2, 23. Management Office, 1994), 40. 250. Wright and Thompson, Fauna Series No. 2, 23. 234. Rogers, Annual Report for 1937, 26. 251. “Outlying Areas,” [Narrative Description of 235. Ibid, 14–16. Existing and Proposed Facilities in Outlying Areas], Master 236. In 1933, the park’s educational department (which Plan, 1939. replaced the information department in 1928) became the 252. Roger Toll to Horace Albright, May 12, 1930, Naturalist Department. This change took place in all national copy in folder “Construction Projects/Landscape Architec- parks after park superintendents meeting in Washington, ture–1930,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. D.C., in 1932 decided that “naturalist” was more “distinc- tive and accurate” than “educational” (see Vick, Yellowstone HAPTER National Park and the Education of Adults, 136). As early C 7 as 1930, park superintendents had decided that the term 1. Park officials recorded a new high of 814,907 visi- “education” seemed “open to misinterpretation, as perhaps tors to the park in 1946 (). tions of learning.” Park superintendents expressed concern 2. Aubrey L. Haines, The Yellowstone Story: A History of that visitors would not understand that education in the parks Our First National Park, revised ed. (Niwot, Colo.: University meant “imparting to the visitor something which is a blending Press of Colorado, 1996), vol. 2, [hereafter Haines, vol. 1 or of the recreational, intellectual, and spiritual.” They sought 2], 462. a term that would “define the educational functions [of the 3. Ibid. parks’ various services] in terms of use and enjoyment of the 4. Edmund B. Rogers, Annual Report for Yellowstone national parks” (Director’s Report for 1930, 19). National Park, 1942, Yellowstone National Park Library, 11, 237. Rogers, Annual Report for 1938, 15. hereafter Annual Report for [year]; Rogers, Annual Report for 238. Rogers, Annual Report for 1937, 16. 1943, 1; Rogers, Annual Report for 1944, 1. 239. Rogers, Annual Report for 1938, 22. 5. Rogers, Annual Report for 1942, 12. 240. Pritchard, Preserving Yellowstone’s Natural Condi- 6. Newton Drury, “Statement Concerning Facilities

204 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Available to the Public in National Park Areas During the “Memorandum for the Press for Immediate Release, June 30, 1943 Season,” folder “Accommodations in Park, 1943–45,” 1959,” book 5 “November 1958–July 1959,” box D3415, Yellowstone Park Company Papers, box 5, Yellowstone Na- record group [hereafter RG] 79, National Archives and Record tional Park Archives [hereafter YNPA]. Center, Kansas City, Missouri [hereafter NAKC]. Copies of 7. Linda Flint McClelland, Building the National Parks: both in folder “Construction Projects/Landscape Architec- Historic Landscape Design and Construction (Baltimore: The ture–1959,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 460. 18. Denise S. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the 8. For further reading on the campfire discussion, see Education of Adults, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wyo- Paul Schullery, Searching For Yellowstone: Ecology and Wonder ming, Laramie, Wyo., 1986, 156–157. in the Last Wilderness (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 19. Rogers, Annual Report for 1942, 6. 1997), chapter 4 and 51–67, and Paul Schullery and Lee Whit- 20. Rogers, Annual Report for 1944, 16. Rogers wrote, tlesey, Myth and History in the Creation of Yellowstone National “Every effort has been made to provide for prompt removal Park (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003). and disposal of garbage, which during the 1943 season was 9. Robin Smith, “The History of Grant Village,” un- burned in pits well removed from the utility areas, since published study, April 24, 1988, 13, Yellowstone National incinerators were not operated, and the same practice was Park Library [hereafter YNPL]. followed in 1944.” 10. Hillory A. Tolson to Regional Director, August 21. Ibid. 20, 1945; Lawrence Merriam to Edmund Rogers, September 22. Rogers, Annual Report for 1946, 20. 27, 1945, copies of both in folder “Administration Build- 23. Rogers, Annual Report for 1944, 13. ings–Mammoth Hot Springs,” Marcy Culpin’s files [hereaf- 24. Ibid. ter Culpin’s files], Historian’s Office, Yellowstone Heritage 25. Rogers, Annual Report for 1947, 8, 10–11. The park and Research Center, Yellowstone National Park, Montana biologist position was established on November 26, 1946. [hereafter HRC]. 26. Rogers, Annual Report for 1949, 12–13. 11. “Park Office Move Advances,” March 3, 1960, copy 27. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education of clipping, folder D3415 “Buildings (General) 1959–60,” of Adults, 159. box D-158, YNPA. Copy in folder “Administration Build- 28. Rogers, Annual Report for 1949, 12–13. ings–Mammoth Hot Springs,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s 29. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education Office, HRC. of Adults, 159. 12. Roger Ernst to Senator Mike Mansfield, March 29, 30. C. Max Bauer, “Report of the Naturalist Division 1960; Senator Mike Mansfield to Conrad Wirth, March 8, for August 1946,” Reports of the Naturalist Division, Yellowstone 1960; Conrad Wirth to Senator G. W. McGee, April 5, 1960, National Park, YNPA, as quoted in Vick, Yellowstone National copies of all in folder “Administration Buildings–Mammoth Park and the Education of Adults, 159. Hot Springs,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 31. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 85, 13. Edmund Rogers, “Monthly Report of the Superin- 462–63. tendent,” September 1944, 5, YNPL; National Park Service, 32. William Nichols to Conrad Wirth, December 17, “Nez Perce Snowshoe Cabin,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1953, folder “Lake,” box YPC-125, YNPA. 1999, Smithsonian #48YE937, LCS #51000, 1–7. 33. Conrad Wirth to William Nichols, June 16, 1955, 14. Newton Drury, Annual Report of the Director of the folder “Lake,” box YPC-125, YNPA. National Park Service to the Secretary of the Interior for the Fis- 34. National Park Service, Mission 66 in Action: Report cal Year Ended June 30, 1946, 307–308, hereafter Director’s on the First Year of Mission 66 (Washington, D.C.: National Report for [year]. Park Service, 1957), 3, as quoted in McClelland, Building the 15. Frank Mattson, “Resident Landscape Architect’s National Parks, 462. Monthly Report, July 10, 1946”; Frank Mattson to Edmund 35. Conrad Wirth, “The Basic Purpose of the National Rogers, November 1, 1946, both in file “207-02.7 Monthly Park System,” in National Park Service, “Mission 66 for the Narrative Landscape Report,” box D-157, YNPA. National Park System,” 1956, 26–27, as quoted by McClel- 16. Warren Hamilton to Regional Director, January land, Building the National Parks, 463. 31, 1957, file “D22, Book #2, January 1957–January 1959,” 36. National Park Service, “Mission 66 for the National box D-223, YNPA. Park System.” See Brian Kenner, An Examination of National 17. George Baggley to Lemuel Garrison, June 11, 1959; Park Service Decision Making: A Case Study of Grant Village,

Notes to Chapter 7 205 Yellowstone National Park, M.S. thesis, University of Montana, National Park,” [n.d., ca. 1957], 3, “Mission 66,” NPS–De- Missoula, Mont., 1984. Copy in YNPL. velopment, USDI–NPS, vertical files, YNPL. 37. See Kenner, An Examination of National Park Service 60. Ibid., 5. Decision Making, for a discussion of anthropocentric versus 61. Ibid., 3. biocentric ideologies of park management. 62. Ibid., 6. 38. Kenner, An Examination of National Park Service 63. Ibid., 9. Decision Making, 53. 64. Ibid., 7. 39. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 464. 65. “Canyon Area Proposed Development,” Master 40. Conrad Wirth, “The Landscape Architect in Na- Plan for 1939, YNPA. tional Park Work: His Projects, Opportunities, Problems, and 66. Ibid. Obligations,” Landscape Architecture 46(1), 9, as quoted in 67. Mark Daniel Barringer, “Mission Impossible: Na- McClelland, Building the National Parks, 464. tional Park Development in the 1950s,” Journal of the West 41. Ibid., 464–465. 38(1) (January 1999), 23. 42. Sarah Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The His- 68. Kenner, An Examination of National Park Service tory of a Building Type (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department Decision Making, 82. of the Interior, 2000), 11–13. 69. See Barringer, “Mission Impossible,” generally, and 43. Ernest Mickel, Architectural Record 120 (2) (August Haines, vol. 2, 369. 1956), 32, as quoted in Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers, 70. Barringer, “Mission Impossible,” 23. 11–12. 71. Ibid., 24. 44. Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers, 23–24. 72. Superintendent Rogers had mentioned this “revolt” 45. Ibid., 22, 13. to Regional Director Baker (Rogers to Regional Director, 46. Edmund Rogers to Regional Director, Memoran- May 21, 1954). dum, May 21, 1954, binder “Museum Plans Madison, Mam- 73. G. R. Brosius, M.D., to Mr. W. M. Nichols, May moth, Norris, West Entrance,” box D-66, YNPA. 17, 1956, and a note on a prescription form dated May 14, 47. Ibid. 1956, both in folder “D 3415, Book 2, Jan. 1955–Sept. 1956,” 48. Howard W. Baker to Superintendent, Yellowstone box D-266, YNPA. National Park, Memorandum, May 28, 1954, folder [binder] 74. E. T. Scoyen, Acting Director, to Hon. Mike Man- “Museum Plans Madison, Mammoth, Norris, West Entrance,” sfield June 8, 1956, folder “D 3415, Book 2, Jan. 1955–Sept. box D-66, YNPA. 1956,” box D-266, YNPA. 49. Baker to Superintendent, May 28, 1954. 75. Ibid. 50. Warren Hamilton, Acting Superintendent, to Su- 76. Devereux Butcher, “Our National Parks in Jeopardy: perintendent, Grand Canyon National Park, Memorandum, Resorts or Wilderness?” Atlantic Monthly (February 1961): October 15, 1954, binder “Museum Plans Madison, Mam- 45–51. moth, Norris, West Entrance,” box D-66, YNPA. 77. Smith, “The History of Grant Village,”18. 51. Ibid. 78. “Proposed Prospectus For Grant Village,” as part of 52. Baker to Superintendent, May 28, 1954. a memorandum from Lemuel Garrison to Regional Director, 53. Rogers to Regional Director, May 21, 1954. Region Two, regarding Pre-Planning conference for Grant 54. Ibid. Village, November 13, 1957, 2, folder “Development–Grant 55. Hamilton to Superintendent, October 15, 1954. Village,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 56. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 470. 79. The Western Office of Design and Construction 57. Conrad Wirth, “Mission 66 in the Headlines,” (WODC) was the successor in 1954, along with its eastern National Parks Magazine 32(132) (1958): 8, as quoted in equivalent (EODC), to the Division of Design and Construc- McClelland, Building the National Parks, 470. tion. According to Allaback’s Mission 66 Visitor Centers, the 58. “Report of Working Committee, April 11–15, Division of Design and Construction was transformed into 1955, Statement of Current and Future Park Visitor Needs the two offices, east and west, in June 1954 (see endnote 15 for Accommodations and Facilities in Yellowstone National on page 248). In 1971, the two offices were consolidated in Park,” file 2, box 188, Ms. 1504, Haynes Papers, Montana the Denver Service Center, which, according to McClelland, State University, Bozeman, Mont. “continues to provide the National Park Service with multidis- 59. National Park Service, “Mission 66 for Yellowstone ciplinary expertise in planning and design,” (see McClelland,

206 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Building the National Parks, 483). Service, “Other Correspondence About Grant Village,” both 80. Superintendent, Yellowstone National Park to in NPS–Development, vertical files, YNPL). In a 1976 letter Chief, Western Office, Division of Design and Construction, to Andrew Wolfe, Group Leader of the Yellowstone Conces- Memorandum, March 26, 1957, 2–4, book 2, Jan. 1956–Jan. sions Review Group, Trevor S. Povah, president of Hamilton 1958, box D-18, YNPA. Copy in folder “Development–Grant Stores, Inc. (which had purchased the Haynes Picture Shops Village,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. in 1968), and a member of the same group, claimed that the 81. “Proposed Prospectus for Grant Village,” 3–4. Grant Village project had been doomed from the start (Richard 82. Lemuel Garrison to Regional Director, April 2, A. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged [Tucson, Arizona: 1958, file “D18, Book #3, January 1958–January 1959,” box The University of Arizona Press, 1985], 379). Grant Village, D-233, YNPA. he complained, “is the first location to get snow in the fall 83. Ibid. According to Garrison, the project would and the last location that can be opened in the spring due to not cause conflict or “destroy any primary values,” because snow. Millions of dollars were spent on sewage, marina, roads, the “forest scene [was] not a superior or unique characteristic etc., and none of it has proved to be economically feasible or of the site, and [was] duplicated in many places elsewhere in advantageous to the traveling public. There is a big mosquito the Park.” Furthermore, the site warranted development for problem in this area. The limited season makes it impossible its “recreational and interpretive use.” Boating and fishing to recover any investment.” Povah strongly recommended that were high priorities for visitors, Garrison noted, and the area no further building be done at Grant Village, and favored a deserved “a full-scale interpretive plan” as well (“Proposed trailer village for recreational vehicles to replace plans for a Prospectus For Grant Village,” 5). Contrarily, according to motel unit. John D. Amerman, President of the Yellowstone park archeologist Elaine Hale, the Grant Village development Park Company, also preferred a trailer park. However, he destroyed some of the park’s oldest archeological sites (personal wanted the government to build the project and for the communication to editor, August 9, 2005). Yellowstone Park Company to operate it (Trevor S. Povah, 84. “Proposed Prospectus For Grant Village,” 7–8. President of Hamilton Stores, Inc., to Andrew C. Wolfe, 85. Ibid., 6. May 27, 1976, “Other Correspondence About Grant Vil- 86. “Grant Village: Dedication and Opening Cer- lage,” NPS–Development, vertical files, YNPL). In his own emony,” Yellowstone National Park, June 23, 1963, photocopy letter to Wolfe, Amerman also argued that the campground of program in folder “Development–Grant Village,” Culpin’s at Grant Village and campgrounds elsewhere in the park files, Historian’s Office, HRC. should be concessioner-operated—a policy change in which 87. According to a post-1981 NPS Denver Service he understood Secretary of the Interior Thomas Kleppe to be Center report on Grant Village, the National Park Service interested (John D. Amerman, President of Yellowstone Park “completed its portion of the primary utility system, a 400- Company, to Andrew C. Wolfe, May 26, 1976, 2, “Other site campground, a visitor center and ranger station, and Correspondence About Grant Village,” NPS–Development, roads” in the village “in anticipation that the park’s principal vertical files, YNPL). concessioner would establish the necessary overnight accom- 88. Haines, vol. 2, 378; Barringer, “Mission Impos- modations and restaurant complex.” The NPS also built a sible,” 22–24; Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, marina and trails. But by 1976, General Host, the company chapter 14. responsible for operating concessions and constructing the 89. McClelland, Building the National Parks, 465– facilities related to them, had built only a service station 466. and camper service facility. General Host claimed that more 90. Ibid., 466. detailed financial analyses had shown that the project would 91. U.S. Department of the Interior, Our Heritage, A be fiscally unprofitable (John D. Amerman, President and Plan for Its Protection and Use: “Mission 66” (Washington, General Manager of Yellowstone Park Company, to Andrew D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1956), as quoted in Al- C. Wolfe, Chairman, Yellowstone Concessions Review Group, laback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers, 17. May 25, 1976, “Other Correspondence About Grant Village,” 92. Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers, 17. NPS–Development, vertical files, YNPL). Finally, because of 93. Conrad Wirth to Washington Office and field of- General Host’s resultant failure to make progress on dining and fices, Memorandum “Visitor Centers; Park Roads,” February lodging facilities, the NPS terminated the contract in 1979, 10, 1956, as quoted in Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers, and purchased the existing facilities (National Park Service 18. (Denver Service Center), “Grant Village,” and National Park 94. Western Office of Design and Construction,

Notes to Chapter 7 207 “Summary of General Discussions of Visitor Center Design with the National Park Service, see Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Problems,” February 4, 1958, 7, as quoted in Allaback, Mission Centers, chapter 6. See endnote 15 on page 248 for a discussion 66 Visitor Centers, 18. of Lyle Bennett and page 189, for example, for a discussion 95. Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers, 22–24. of Sanford Hill. 96. Ibid., 24–25. 110. Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers, 221. 97. Mission 66 visitor centers were also planned for 111. Ibid., 265. Mammoth Hot Springs, Madison Junction, and the ill-fated 112. Ibid., 34. Firehole Village. When the Firehole Village project was aban- 113. Ibid., 34. doned in 1971, a new visitor center was built at Old Faithful, 114. Ibid., 31. instead. 115. Ibid., 26, 29. 98. National Park Service, “Canyon Village Visitor 116. For a brief discussion of this activity, see ibid., Center,” Historic Structure Survey Form, 1999, Smithsonian 30. #48YE999, 3. 117. Ibid., 31. 99. Jerry A. Riddall, Chief Architect, WODC, to Re- 118. Ibid., 25. gional Director, Midwest Region, Memorandum, October 119. Ibid., 25. 1, 1963, folder “D3415, #17 Oct. 1963–Jan. 1964,” box 120. Ibid., 27. D-245, YNPA. 121. For example, Roy Appelman and Ronald Lee, two 100. Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers, 16, 104. historians with the NPS in the 1960s, favored “right-on-top” 101. Ibid., 17. siting (ibid.). 102. Instead of planning to hire and then, once the 122. From “A Report on Visitor Centers” (Washington, program was completed in 1966, lay off the many architects D. C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, ca. January 1960), as needed to design the new Mission 66 visitor centers, the NPS quoted in Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers, 28. opted to contract out work to different architectural firms 123. From “A Survey of the Public Concerning the Na- (Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers, 25). tional Parks,” (Princeton: Audience Research, Inc., December 103. Ibid. 1955), as quoted in Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers, 4. 104. Ibid., 261, and Riddall to Regional Director, 124. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education October 1, 1963. of Adults, 133–136. 105. Warren F. Hamilton, Acting Superintendent, 125. Ibid., 134–135. to Director, Region Two, Memorandum, January 5, 1956, 126. Vick documented the interim names: Branch of folder “D3415, Book 2 Jan. 1955–Sept. 1956,” box D-226, Natural History (1943), Natural History Division (1948), and YNPA. Research and Interpretation (1951) (ibid., 139). 106. Frank Mattson to Lemuel Garrison, September 127. Ibid. 19, 1957; Lemuel Garrison to Thomas Vint, October 11, 128. Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage. Third ed. (Cha- 1957; Lyle Bennet to Cop Construction Company, August pel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1977), 8, as 28, 1957; and Earl Brown to Cop Construction Company, quoted in Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education September 27, 1957, as quoted in Mary Shivers Culpin, draft of Adults, 181. “History of Administration,” chapter 9, page 15, Culpin’s 129 .Freeman Tilden, The Fifth Essence (Washington, files, Historian’s Office, HRC. The colors selected for the D.C.: The National Park Trust Fund Board, n.d.), 60, as visitor center were Sanitas colors T520 and T510. The exte- quoted in Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education rior colors for the camp manager’s residence were planned to of Adults, 179. Tilden wrote three books on national parks: be the same as those of the District Ranger’s residence. The The National Parks: What They Mean to You and Me (1951), selection for the asphalt tile for the visitor center was Matico The Fifth Essence: An Invitation to Share Our Eternal Heritage - Exhibit Room Floor - CK 1005; all other asphalt tile floors (circa 1953), and Interpreting Our Heritage (1957). were to be CK 1003. 130. Paul E. Schulz, “Interpretation of Park Values,” 107. M. E. Beatty, Regional Chief of Interpretation, to Park Practice Guidelines (March 1962): 49, as quoted in Vick, Superintendent, September 28, 1960, folder “D3415, Book Yellowstone National Park and the Education of Adults, 183. #9, Aug. 1960–Jan. 1961,” box 243, YNPA. 131. Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 9, as quoted in 108. Ibid. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education of Adults, 109. For an excellent discussion of Doty’s association 181.

208 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” 132. Ibid., 8, as quoted in Vick, Yellowstone National YNPA. Park and the Education of Adults, 181. 151. Park Engineer, Assistant Superintendent, Chief 133. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education Ranger, Assistant Park Naturalist, Park Landscape Archi- of Adults, 179. tect, and District Ranger to Superintendent, April 2, 1959, 134. Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 9, as quoted in folder “D32, Grounds, Parking Areas, Campgrounds, General, Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education of Adults, 1958–60,” box D-159, YNPA. 181. 152. M. H. Harvey, Acting Regional Director, to 135. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education Superintendent, Memorandum, August 21, 1959, book 1 of Adults, 183. “Yellowstone Jan. 1953–Jan. 1964,” box L3415, RG 79, 136. See Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Educa- NAKC. Copy in folder “Campgrounds—General,” Culpin’s tion of Adults, chapter 9 and page 234; Haines, vol. 2, 382. files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 137. From Lemuel A. Garrison, The Making of a Ranger: 153. Lemuel A. Garrison to Mr. E. W. Woodger [?], Forty Years with the National Parks (Salt Lake City: Howe September 3, 1959, book 1 “Yellowstone National Park, Jan. Brothers, 1983), 279. 1953–Jan. 1964,” box L3415, RG 79, NAKC. Copy in folder 138. Lon Garrison, “Interview with Lon Garrison, with “Campgrounds–Pelican Creek,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Alan Mebane, Chief Naturalist, Yellowstone National Park,” Office, HRC. February 22, 1973, transcribed by Cheryl Moore, February 154. Lemuel A. Garrison to Regional Director, May 1977, 12, vertical file “Biography,” YNPL. 18, 1961, book 1 “Yellowstone National Park, Jan. 1953–Jan. 139. Haines, vol. 2, 379. 1964,” box L3415, RG 79, NAKC. Copy in folder “Camp- 140. Lon Garrison, “Interview with Alan Mebane,” grounds–General,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. February 22, 1973, 12. 155. Lemuel A. Garrison to Regional Director, Region 141. Haines, vol. 2, 379. II, Memorandum, June 18, 1962, folder “D5039, book 17, 142. Lon Garrison, “Interview with Alan Mebane,” Jan.–July 1962,” box D-244, YNPA. February 22, 1973, 12. 156. Yellowstone National Park, “Visitor Days in Yel- 143. Vick, Yellowstone National Park and the Education lowstone Breaks All-time Record,” Memorandum of the press of Adults, 200–201. for immediate release, October 7, 1963, book 1 “Yellowstone 144. According to Vick (Yellowstone National Park and National Park, Jan. 1953–Jan. 1964,” box L3415, RG 79, the Education of Adults, 202–204), the Manual of General NAKC. Copy in folder “Campgrounds–General,” Culpin’s Information replaced the Ranger Naturalists’ Manual (last up- files, Historian’s Office, HRC. dated in 1945), and park historian Aubrey Haines introduced 157. Roger W. Toll to Mr. Mattson, Memorandum, The Yellowstone Interpreter to replace Yellowstone Nature Notes, July 14, 1935, copy in folder “Campgrounds–Bridge Bay,” which was discontinued in December 1958. Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 145. Rogers, Annual Report for 1948, 10. 158. Jerry A. Riddall, Chief Architect, WODC, to 146. Rogers, Annual Report for 1949, 18. Regional Director, Region II, April 20, 1962, folder “D3415, 147. See Howard Baker to Mr. S. S. Kistler, September book 16, Aug. 1961–May 1962,” box D-243, YNPA; Luther 10, 1953, and S. S. Kistler to Mr. Gerald [sic] L. Wirth, Au- T. Peterson, Jr., Regional Engineer, to Acting Superinten- gust 9, 1953, both in folder “601-03 Campsites and Camp- dent, Yellowstone National Park, Long Distance Telephone grounds,” box D-156, YNPA. Call, June 21, 1960, folder “D46, book 3, Jan. 1960–Jan. 148. S. A. Mendenhall to Idaho Senator, August 10, 1961,” box D-243, YNPA; Luther T. Peterson, Jr., to Chief, 1957, Yellowstone National Park, book 1 “Yellowstone Western Office, Design and Construction, Memorandum, 1953–1964,” box L3415, RG 79, NAKC. Copy in folder December 30, 1960, folder “D32, Grounds, Parking Areas, “Campgrounds—General,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, Campgrounds, 1958–1960,” box D-159, YNPA. HRC. 159. M. H. Harvey to Superintendents, August 9, 1956, 149. Assistant Superintendent to Superintendent, Mem- as quoted in Culpin, draft “History of Administration,” 14. orandum, July 6, 1959, folder “D32, Grounds, Parking Areas, 160. Thomas Vint to Lemuel Garrison, May 10, 1957, Campgrounds, General, 1958–60,” box D-159, YNPA. as quoted in Culpin, draft “History of Administration, 14. 150. Lemuel A. Garrison, Superintendent to Mr. C. E. 161. Lon Garrison, “Interview with Alan Mebane,” Stinson, September 1, 1961, folder “D32—Grounds—Gen- February 22, 1973, 2. eral (Parking Areas, Campgrounds) 1961–1962,” box D-159, 162. Ibid.

Notes to Chapter 7 209 163. For a more thorough analysis of the Leopold Re- 177. Mattison, “Report on Historical Structures,” 6. port and a discussion of A. Starker Leopold’s life and career, see 178. Horace Albright to Conrad Wirth, February 10, Carol Rydell, Aldo Starker Leopold: Wildlife Biologist and Public 1960, copy in folder “Construction Projects/Landscape Archi- Policy Maker, M.A. thesis, Montana State University, 1993. tecture–1960,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 164. Kenner, An Examination of National Park Service 179. Ibid. Decision Making, 59. 180. Ibid. 165. Alice K. Wondrak, (Do Not) Feed the Bears: Policy, 181. Ibid. Culture and the Historical Narrative of the Yellowstone Bear, 182. Conrad Wirth to Horace Albright, January 9, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., 1961, copy in folder “Construction Projects/Landscape Archi- 2002, 275–276. Copy in YNPL. tecture–1960,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. 166. Schullery, Searching For Yellowstone, 168. 183. Haines, vol. 2, 379. 167. Robert Barbee, in a personal interview with Brian 184. Albright to Wirth, February 10, 1960. C. Kenner, September 15, 1983. See Kenner, An Examination 185. Schullery, Searching for Yellowstone, 186. of National Park Service Decision Making, 59. 186. Ibid., 186–187. 168. For an excellent discussion of this period in 187. Bartlett, Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged, 384. Yellowstone’s wildlife management history, see Yellowstone 188. Schullery, Searching For Yellowstone, 183. Science 8(2) (Spring 2000), 2–22. 189. Haines, vol. 2, 383. 169. A. Starker Leopold, Stanley A. Cain, Clarence 190. Ibid. Cottam, Ira N. Gabrielson, and Thomas L. Kimball, “Wildlife 191. Smith, “The History of Grant Village,” 46. Management in the National Parks,” Transactions of the North 192. Conrad Wirth, Director National Park Service, to American Wildlife Conference 28 (1963): 34, 35. Washington Office and All Field Offices, Memorandum, Feb- 170. George Baggley to Regional Director, August 14, ruary 27, 1959, folder “#9, 1959: Memorandum Regarding 1957, copy in folder “Construction Projects/Landscape Archi- Increased Public Relations Effort For Mission 66,” box D-20, tecture–1958,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. YNPA. As is often the case with requests that memo recipients 171. Leopold et al., “Wildlife Management in the destroy the document after reading it, some survived; the National Parks,” as quoted in Schullery, Searching for Yel- existence of this one is a case in point. lowstone, 169. 193. Haines, vol. 2, 383. 172. Baggley to Regional Director, August 14, 1957. 194. Schullery, Searching for Yellowstone, 192. 173. Howard Baker to Lemuel Garrison, November 195. Smith, “The History of Grant Village,” 28–29; see 13, 1959, copy in folder “Construction Projects/Landscape Garrison, The Making of a Ranger, as quoted in Smith, “The Architecture–1959,” Culpin’s files, Historian’s Office, HRC. History of Grant Village,” 47. 174. Ray H. Mattison, “Report on Historical Structures 196. Kenner, An Examination of National Park Service at Yellowstone National Park,” September 1960, 1, vertical Decision Making, 59. files, YNPL. 197. Richard West Sellars, Preserving Nature in the Na- 175. Ibid., 3–7. tional Parks (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 183; 176. A. L. Haines to R. N. McIntyre, Memorandum, Smith, “The History of Grant Village,” 47. October 26, 1960, in Mattison, “Report on Historical Struc- tures.”

210 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Bibliography

Sources Used

The Yellowstone National Park Archives and Research Resorts or Wilderness?” Atlantic Monthly 207(2) Library in the Yellowstone Heritage and Research Center (1961): 45–51. (Yellowstone National Park, Montana) contains countless Carr, Ethan. Wilderness By Design: Landscape Architecture invaluable published and unpublished sources. First and and the National Park Service (Lincoln: University of foremost, the archives contain correspondence, official Nebraska Press, 1998). government documents, and unpublished reports concern- Chittenden, Hiram Martin. “Improvement of Yellowstone ing Yellowstone National Park. These holdings are exten- National Park,” Appendix GGG of the Annual sive, and for the most part processed in a user-friendly way. Report of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Upon the Master plans for the park, although in fragile condition, Construction, Repair, and Maintenance of Roads and are also accessible. The library contains most published and Bridges in the Yellowstone National Park (Washington, unpublished texts concerning the park. It also houses most D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1903). of the park superintendents’ annual and monthly reports, ———. The Yellowstone National Park: Historical and dating—in the case of annual reports—from 1872. Annual Descriptive. 5th ed. (Cincinnati: The Robert Clarke reports of the director of the National Park Service are also Company, 1905). available. The photo archives contain countless wonderful Cramton, Louis. Early History of Yellowstone National Park photographic prints. and Its Relation to National Park Policies (Washington, The Historian’s Office at the Heritage and Research D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1932). Center houses a collection of photocopied documents con- Culpin, Mary Shivers. “For the Benefit and Enjoyment cerning Yellowstone National Park compiled from other Na- of the People”: A History of Concession Development tional Archives depositories. Mary Shivers Culpin collected in Yellowstone National Park, 1872–1966. Historic these photocopies for her research into the roads, conces- Resource Study, vol. 2. (Yellowstone National Park, sions, and administration of the park. These documents are Wyo.: National Park Service, Yellowstone Center for processed and referred to as the Marcy Culpin files. Many Resources, YCR-CR-2003-01, 2003). of these documents are also available in the archives. The ———. The History of the Construction of the Road System center also contains the Historic Structure Survey forms in Yellowstone National Park, 1872–1966. Historic for most of the structures in the park. Completed in 1999, Resource Study, vol. 1. (Denver: Rocky Mountain these forms contain some useful information concerning Region, National Park Service, 1994). park structures. ———. “Yellowstone and Its Borders: A Significant Influence Toward the Creation of the First Forest Reserve,” in Harold K. Steen, ed., The Origins of the Bibliography National Forests (Durham, No. Carolina: Forest History Society, 1992): 276–287. Allaback, Sarah. Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Dunlap, Thomas R. “Wildlife, Science, and the National Building Type (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Parks, 1920–1940,” Pacific Historical Review 59(2) the Interior, 2000). (May 1990): 187–202. Barringer, Mark Daniel. “Mission Impossible: National Foresta, Ronald A. America’s National Parks and Their Park Development in the 1950s,” Journal of the West Keepers (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 38(1) (January 1999): 22–26. 1984). Bartlett, Richard A. Yellowstone: A Wilderness Besieged Garrison, Lemuel A. The Making of a Ranger: Forty (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1985). Years with the National Parks (Salt Lake City: Howe Battle, David G., and Erwin N. Thompson. Fort Brothers, 1983). Yellowstone: Historic Structure Report (Denver: National Good, Albert H. Park and Recreation Structures (New York: Park Service, 1972). Princeton Architectural Press, 1999). Reprint of 1938 Butcher, Devereux. “Our National Parks in Jeopardy: edition published by National Park Service.

Bibliography 211 Hague, Arnold. “The Yellowstone National Park,” Scribner’s Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998). Magazine 35 (May 1904). Meinecke, E. P. A. A Camp Ground Policy (Ogden, Utah: Haines, Aubrey L. A History of The Yellowstone National U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Park Chapel (Yellowstone National Park, 1963). 1932). ———. Yellowstone National Park: Its Exploration and ———. Camp Planning and Camp Reconstruction (N.p.: Establishment (Washington, D.C.: Government U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Printing Office, 1974). n.d.). ———. Yellowstone Place Names: Mirrors of History (Niwot, Norris, Philetus W. The Calumet of the Coteau Colo.: University Press of Colorado, 1996). (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippencott & Co., 1883). ———. The Yellowstone Story: A History of Our First ———. The Calumet of the Coteau Together with a National Park. vol. 1. (Niwot, Colo.: University Press Guide-book of the Yellowstone Park (Philadelphia: J.B. of Colorado, 1977). Lippincott & Co., 1884). ———. The Yellowstone Story: A History of Our First Olmsted, Frederick Law. “The Distinction Between National Park. vol. 2. revised ed. (Niwot, Colo.: National Parks and National Forests,” Landscape University Press of Colorado, 1996). Architecture VI(3) (April 1916): 114–115. Haines, Aubrey L., Charles S. Pope, and Erwin N. Paige, John C. The Civilian Conservation Corps and the Thompson. Norris Soldier Station, Yellowstone National National Park Service, 1933–1942: An Administrative Park: Historic Structures Report (Washington, D.C.: History (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, National Park Service, 1969). 1985). Hampton, H. Duane. How the U.S. Cavalry Saved Our Pritchard, James A. Preserving Yellowstone’s Natural National Parks (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, Conditions: Science and the Perception of Nature 1971). (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999). Harrison, Laura Soulliere. Architecture in the Parks: National Proceedings of the National Park Conference Held at the Historic Landmark Theme Study (Washington, D.C.: Yellowstone National Park, September 11 and 12, 1911 National Park Service, 1986). (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, Ise, John. Our National Park Policy: A Critical History 1912). (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1961). Redinger, Matthew A. The Civilian Conservation Corps as Jay, David A. “The History of Masterplanning in a Tool of the National Park Service: The Development Yellowstone,” unpublished paper, December 22, of Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, 1933–1942, 1986, 2, copy in folder “Master Plans,” Culpin’s files, M.A. thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., Historian’s Office, Yellowstone Heritage and Research 1988. Copy in Yellowstone Research Library. Center, Yellowstone National Park, Mont. Runte, Alfred. National Parks: The American Experience Kenner, Brian C. An Examination of National Park Service (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979). Decision Making: A Case Study of Grant Village, Rydell, Carol Henrietta Leigh. Aldo Starker Leopold: Wildlife Yellowstone National Park, M.S. thesis, University of Biologist and Public Policy Maker, M.A. thesis, Montana Montana, Missoula, Mont., 1984. Copy in Yellowstone State University, Bozeman, Mont., 1993. Research Library. Schullery, Paul. The Bears of Yellowstone (Worland, Wyo.: Koel, T. M., J. L. Arnold, P. E. Bigelow, P. D. Doepke, B. High Plains Publishing, Co., 1992). D. Ertel, and D. L. Mahony. Yellowstone Fisheries and ———. “Buffalo Jones and the Bison Herd in Aquatic Science: Annual Report, 2003 (Yellowstone Yellowstone,” Montana the Magazine of Western History National Park, Wyo.: National Park Service, 26(3) (July 1976): 40–51. Yellowstone Center for Resources, YCR-NR-2004-03, Schullery, Paul, and Lee Whittlesey. “Mountain Goats in 2004). the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: A Prehistoric and Leopold, A. Starker, Stanley A. Cain, Clarence Cottam, Historical Context,” Western North American Naturalist Ira N. Gabrielson, and Thomas L. Kimball. “Wildlife 61(3) (July 2001). Management in the National Parks,” Transactions of the Schullery, Paul. Searching For Yellowstone: Ecology and North American Wildlife Conference 28 (1963). Wonder in the Last Wilderness (Boston: Houghton Ludlow, William. Report of a Reconnaissance form Carroll, Mifflin Company, 1997). Montana Territory, on the Upper Missouri to the Schullery, Paul, and Lee Whittlesey. Myth and History in Yellowstone National Park, and Return, Made in the the Creation of Yellowstone National Park (Lincoln: Summer of 1875 (Washington, D.C.: Government University of Nebraska Press, 2003). Printing Office, 1876). ———. “Yellowstone’s Creation Myth: Can We Live with McClelland, Linda Flint. Building the National Parks: Our Own Legends?” Montana the Magazine of Western Historic Landscape Design and Construction (Baltimore: History 53(1) (Spring 2003): 2–13.

212 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Sellars, Richard West. Preserving Nature in the National Historian’s Office, Yellowstone Heritage and Research Parks (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997). Center, Yellowstone National Park, Mont. Simmons, R. Laurie, and Thomas H. Simmons. National Whittlesey, Lee. H. “The First National Park Interpreter: G. Historic Landmark Nomination: Fort Yellowstone, L. Henderson in Yellowstone, 1882–1902,” Montana Draft, May 10, 2000. Copy available in Yellowstone the Magazine of Western History 46(1) (Spring 1996): National Park Archives (Yellowstone National 26–41. Park, Mont.) and Yellowstone Center for Resources ———. Yellowstone Place Names (Helena, Mont.: Montana (Mammoth Hot Springs, Wyo.). Historical Society Press, 1988). ———. National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Whittlesey, Lee H., and Paul Schullery. “The Roosevelt Mammoth Hot Springs, Draft, July 6, 2000. Copy Arch: A Centennial History of an American Icon,” available in Yellowstone National Park Archives Yellowstone Science 11(3) (Summer 2003): 2–24. (Yellowstone National Park, Mont.) and Yellowstone Wondrak, Alice K. (Do Not) Feed the Bears: Policy, Culture, Center for Resources (Mammoth Hot Springs, Wyo.). and the Historical Narrative of the Yellowstone Bear, Smith, Robin. “The History of Grant Village,” unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., study, April 24, 1988. Copy in Yellowstone Research 2002. Copy in Yellowstone Research Library. Library. Worster, Donald. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Strong, W. E. A Trip to the Yellowstone National Park in Ideas. 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, July, August, and September, 1875 (Washington, D.C., 1994). 1876). Wright, George M., Joseph S. Dixon, and Ben H. Tweed, William C. Parkitecture: A History of Rustic Building Thompson. Fauna of the National Parks of the United Design in the National Park System, 1916-1942, States. Fauna Series No. 1, May 1932. (Washington, unpublished manuscript in vertical files, “History– D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1933). YNP–Structures,” Yellowstone Research Library. Wright, George M., and Ben H. Thompson. Fauna U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District). Context of the National Parks of the United States: Wildlife Study of the United States Quartermaster General Management in the National Parks. Fauna Series No. 2, Standardized Plans, 1866–1942 (November 1972). July 1934. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Copy in Yellowstone Research Library. Office, 1935). Varley, John D., and Paul Schullery. Freshwater Wilderness Wylie, W. W.,The Yellowstone National Park, or the Great (Yellowstone National Park, Wyo.: Yellowstone Library American Wonderland (Kansas City, Mo.: Ramsey, and Museum Association, 1983). Millett & Hudson, 1882). Vick, Denise S., Yellowstone National Park and the Education Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone’s Northern Range: of Adults. Ph.D. diss., University of Wyoming, Laramie, Complexity and Change in a Wildland Ecosystem Wyo., 1986. Copy in Yellowstone Research Library. (Mammoth Hot Springs, Wyo.: National Park Service). Whitacre, Christine. “Otter Creek Bear-Feeding Station,” Yellowstone Science, “Ungulate Management in Yellowstone, no date, archeological report, 3, copy in folder “Bear Part II: Oral History Interviews with Former Staff,” Feeding Grounds–Otter Creek,” Culpin’s files, Yellowstone Science 8(2) (Spring 2000): 2–22.

Bibliography 213 Index

A Auto caravans. See education. Automobiles allowed in the park, 57, 66, 72–75, Adirondack style 63 77–81, 84, 89, 91, 96, 112, 113, 133 Albright, Horace Marden, 90, 103 “three-headed monster” and, 52 as assistant to Adolph Miller in Department B of Interior, 56 as superintendent of Yellowstone National Baggley, George F., 114, 156, 157 Park, 76, 94, 96–101 Baker, Howard, 143, 144, 153, 154, 157 bears and, 106, 108 Baker, Newton, 58 biographical sketch, 76 Ballinger, Richard, 54, 55 camping and, 75, 84 Baronett, Collins J. (Jack), 22, 36 disagreement with Daniel Hull, 84, 86, 87 Barringer, Mark Daniel, 146, 148 military management of the park and, 57 Bartlett, Richard A., 13, 15, 17, 20, 148, 159 organization of park operations into depart- Battle, David G., 31, 32, 35, 59, 60 ments, 78 Bauer, Carl. See park naturalist. Paul Kiessig and, 87, 93, 94 Bears, ranger station/community center design and, as amusement, 106, 108 85–88, 91, 92, 98 as danger, 47, 108, 133, 134 snowshoe cabins and, 82, 83, 89, 91, 92, 95 Bear feeding grounds, Allaback, Sarah 143, 148, 149, 151 biological thinking and, 134, 135, 140 Allen, Major H.T., closing of, 140 General S. B. M. Young and, 53, 54, 59 education and, 134 American Association for Museums 101 Otter Creek, 70, 132, 133, 140 American Civic Association 55 problems with bears and, 108, 132, 133 American Society of Landscape Architects 55, 67 Beaux Arts style, 59 Amphitheaters, Bechler River Soldier Station, 38, 63 bears and, 133 Benson, Major Harry Coupland, CCC and, 129 biographical sketch, 51, 52 Charles Punchard and, 128 Bison, Herbert Maier and, 128, 129 protection of, 6, 7, 16, 37, 41, 42, 44–46, Anderson, Captain George Smith, 50, 69, 71, 100, 106–108, 122, 127, 135 biographical sketch, 26 Black Sand Basin, 94, 104, 133 bison protection and, 44, 46 Boutelle, Captain Frazier Augustus, camping and, 48 biographical sketch, 26 construction of park facilities and, 50 campsites and, 48, 49 fire protection and, 45 fire control and, 26, 41, 42 Fort Yellowstone and, 29–31 fish introduction and, 42, 43 park outposts and, 36, 37 Fort Yellowstone and, 28, 29 protection of the park and, 36, 37, 43, 44 National Zoo and, 42 Apollinaris Spring, 49, 50, 72, 92, 94, 125 park outposts and, 36 Assistant superintendents, 14, 21, 40, 76, 78, 123, wildlife and, 42 138, 154 Branch of Plans and Design. See Landscape

214 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Architecture Division. Civilian ranger corps. See park rangers. Brett, Colonel Lloyd Milton, Clarke, Gilmore D., 116–119, 126, 127 “special sanitary camps” and, 73, 74 Clean-up effort, 112 administration building and, 62 Cleveland, President Grover, 21 biographical sketch, 52 Colonial Revival style, 35, 59, 160 branch museums and, 62 Color of park structures, 50, 82, 88, 90, 123 military management of park and, 51, 55, Comfort stations, 56–58, 65 controversy concerning location of, 125 National Parks Conference (1911) and, 55 standardized plan for, 90, 91, 125 riding hall and, 61 Committee on Study of Educational Problems in sanitation and, 72, 73 National Parks, 105 Bridge Bay development, 119, 145, 153, 155 Community center/ranger stations. See ranger station/ Brown, Captain Oscar James, 26, 31, 38, 39, 45 community rooms. Buffalo corral at Antelope Canyon, 135 Conger, Patrick Henry, 13–21, 23, 24, 36, 40, 63 Buffalo Ranch in Lamar Valley. See Lamar Buffalo Coolidge, President Calvin, 107 Ranch. Cottage Style architecture, 29 Bumpus, Hermon C., 105, 119, 127, 132 Coudrey, Harry, 54 Burney, A. W., 95 Cramton, Louis C., 2,14 Crow Indians, 5 C D Camp Sheridan, 27–30, 35, 36, 50, 157 Campgrounds, Dana, E. S., 3 automobile camps, 84, 89, 91 Daniels, Mark Roy, 56, 57, 67, 70, 73 CCC improvement of, 112, 114 Davidson, Ernest A., 95, 96 Mission 66 and, 145, 148, 154, 155 Dean, James H., 14, 15 public, 79, 90, 92, 99 Delano, Columbus, 2, 3, 6 restrictions and regulations, 68 Department of the Interior, Canyon area observation stations and platforms, 81, conflict with War Department, 19, 28, 43, 96, 130 51, 52, 54, 56, 57 Canyon Village, 138, 142, 145–147, 149, 159 rules and regulations for Yellowstone National Caparn, Harold, 96 Park, 16, 36, 40, 72, 73 Capitol Hill, 9, 27, 29, 34, 105 Department of War. See War Department. Carnes, William G., 115, 126, 143 Dixon, Joseph, 134, 140 Carpenter, Robert E., 13, 20–22, 24 Doty, Cecil John, 150, 151 Carpenter, Thomas E., 116, 125 Drury, Newton, 138, 139, 141 Carr, Ethan, 56, 79, 80, 121 “Duckwalks,” 141 Chamberlain, Colonel J. L., 65, 68 Chambers, William, 15, 16 Checking stations, 89, 119, 124, 144 E Child, Harry, Child House, 82, 160 East Entrance, Chittenden, Captain Hiram, 2–4, 13, 15, 16, 20, Charles Punchard’s plan for, 81, 91 31–34, 39, 49, 51, 63, 77, 79 Education, Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 109, 111, 138, auto caravans and, 131, 132, 140 139, 141, 143, 144, 150 Division of Interpretation, 148, 152, 160 Civilian management of Yellowstone National Park, history of in Yellowstone, 12, 75, 79, 97, 99, 52, 55–57, 61, 74 100

Index 215 Information Bureau, 97, 98, 118 G lectures and, 134 museums as important part of, 100, 101 Gallatin Game Preservation Company (GGPC), 107, Naturalist Department and, 105 112 roadside exhibits and, 130 Garfield, James (Secretary of Interior), 51, 53, 54, 62, self-guiding trails and, 104–106 71 visitor centers and, 145, 148, 149–152 Garrison, Lemuel Alonzo (“Lon”), Edwards, Guy D., 110, 113, 122, 123, 125, 126 biographical sketch, 138 Eisenhower, President Dwight, 141, 142 campgrounds and, 154, 155 Emergency Conservation Work (ECW), 109, 111– Grant Village and, 147, 148, 153 114, 122, 124, 125, 155 historic preservation and, 157 Emmert, John W., management structure change and, 153 biographical sketch, 110 Mission 66 and, 149, 150, 160 Employee housing, 126, 139, 145 Garrison, Lindley, 56, 57 Erwin, James Brailsford, 26, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49, 72, Good, Albert H., 63, 102, 120, 123, 124, 128, 89 129–131 Goode, George William, 26, 39, 45 Goodwin, George E., 80 F Goodwin, Vernon, 117, 118 Grant Village, Fencing (along park’s northern boundary), 31 controversy surrounding, 147, 148, 159 Fire, Grinnell, George Bird, 3 lookout stations, 89, 124, 125 protection from, 40–42, 50, 59, 68, 71, 72, 77, 81, 94, 96, 111, 112, 116, 124, 126, H 127, 156 “Firehole Village,” 145, 146, 148 Hague, Arnold, 21, 23–25, 27 Fish, Haines, Aubrey L., egg collecting projects, 46 park historian, 153, 157 hatchery, 40, 50, 66, 87, 104, 127, 132 Queen’s Laundry and, 10, 11 introduction of non-native species into park, Hale, William, 21 42, 44, 45, 71 Hall, Ansel F., 100, 101, 104, 134 stocking of, 43, 50 Hamlin, Chauncey J., 101 Fort Yellowstone, Hampton, H. Duane, barracks, 30, 32, 58, 59, 159 military management of the park and, 53 bachelor officers’ quarters, 59, 98, 103, 118 “three-headed monster” and, 52 chapel, 60, 61 Handkerchief Pool, 94 duplexes of officers’ quarters, 30, 58, 59 Harris, Captain Moses, 25–28, 36, 40–43, 47, 48 field officers’ quarters, 59, 60 Harrison, Laura Soulliere, 102, 103, 120 guard houses, 30, 60 Harvey, M. H., 154 landscaping of, 32 Hay fields for wildlife, 69 non-commissioned officers’ quarters, 30, 58 Hayden, Ferdinand V., 2 officers’ row, 30, 90 Haynes, Jack E., 100, 104 parade ground, 31, 32, 59, 60, 81 Henderson, George L., 15 post exchange, 30 Hill, Leroy, 121 reservoir, 9, 31, 32 Hill, Sanford, 126, 150 U.S. Commissioner’s house, 32 Historic preservation, National Historic Preservation Act (1966), 157, 159

216 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” Hitchcock, F. A., 46 idea of harmony between park structures and Horr, Henry, 3 natural environment and, 32, 79, 80 Howard Eaton Trail, 90, 112 Landscape Architecture Division, Howell, Ed, 44 Branch of Plans and Design, 115, 120, 124 Hubbard, Henry Vincent, 79 Landscape Engineering Division, 50, 93, 94 Hull, Daniel R., Western Office of Design and Construction ranger station/community center design and, (WODC), 147, 149, 150, 151 85–88, 90, 92, 125 Landscape Engineering Division. See Landscape Architecture Division. Lane, Franklin, 56–58, 62, 73, 74, 79 I Langford, Nathaniel Pitt, 1–4 Langley, Samuel P., 42 Information services. See education. Larkin, George, 122–124 Interpretation, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, 100, 101, 125 definition of, 152, 153 Leopold, A. Starker, 155–157 difference from education, 99, 152 Leopold Report, 155, 156 Mission 66 and, 145, 148, 150, 152, 160 Lindsley, Chester Allinson, 75–77 terminology, 137, 152 Lindsley, Elmer, 46 Lower Slough Creek Horse (or Hay) Ranch, 88, 89, 95, 112 J Ludlow, Captain William, 3, 14, 24

Jones, Charles J. “Buffalo,” 46, 100, 131 Jones, Edward, 131 M Johnston, Fred, reports on campsgrounds, 113, 114 Maginnis, Martin, 3 Maier, Herbert, amphitheaters, 128, 129 K architectural philosophy, 103, 120 museums and, 101, 102, 127 Kenner, Brian C., 142, 155, 160 nature shrines or roadside exhibits, 130, 131 Kiessig, Paul, 85, 87, 93, 94 Mammoth Hot Springs, Kingman, First Lieutenant Dan C., 18, 19 Gilmore D. Clarke’s plan to revamp, 116– 119, 126 Manning, Warren H., 32 L Mason, Edwin C., 27 Master plans, Lacey Act, 30, 40, 44, 50 development of, 109, 115, 116 Lamar, Luciuis Q. C., 21–25 Yellowstone National Park’s of 1933, 116, Lamar Buffalo Ranch, 66, 69, 90, 95, 96, 107, 111, 117, 130 127, 140, 157 Yellowstone National Park’s of 1939, 119, Lambert, Alexander, 53, 54 135, 146 Landscape architects, Yellowstone National Park’s of 1941, 139, Charles Punchard. See Punchard, Charles. 140 Daniel Hull. See Hull, Daniel. Mather, Stephen Tyng, National Park structures and, 58, 67, 68, 79, as assistant to Secretary Lane, 57 83, 94, 95, 111, 115, 120, 122, 143, 146 as director of National Park Service, 77, Thomas Vint. See Vint, Thomas. 82–84, 106–108 Landscape architecture, on education, 97, 98, 100

Index 217 ranger station/community center design and, idea for first, 51, 58, 62 85–88 Madison Junction, 101, 102, 129, 139, 145 Mattes, Merrill J., 157 Mammoth Hot Springs, 98, 100, 104, 116, Mattison, Ray H., 157, 158 118, 119, 126, 140 Mattson, Frank, 114, 115, 124, 127, 139, 146, 150, national parks as museums, 100 155 Norris Geyser Basin, 101–103, 128 Maus, Brigadier General Marion, 65, 68 Old Faithful, 97, 105, 128 McCarter, Kenneth, 95, 101, 115, 117–119, 122, 125, 127, 128, 130, 132 McCartney, J. C., 3, 6, 157 N McClelland, Linda Flint, 32, 57, 63, 67, 79–81, 85, 90, 94–96, 111, 112, 117, 120, 121, 129, 130, National Park Service, 142, 148 creation of, 57, 68, 74–76 McDonald, Colonel Marshall, 42, 43 National Park Service Act of 1916, 74, 76, 142, 156 McFarland, J. Horace, 55 National Parks Conference of 1911, 55 McLaughlin, John S., Native American tribes, biographical sketch, 138 Bannock, 8, 9, 140 Meagher, Mary, 153 Crow, 5, 8 Meinecke, Emilio P., Sheepeater, 6, 8 campground planning and reconstruction, Shoshone, 8 113, 114 Nichols, William Morse, 117, 118, 142, 146 Meldrum, John W., 30, 61 Noble, John W., 29, 36, 42, 44, 48 Merriam, John C., 105 Nolen, John, 117, 125 Miller, Adolph C., 56 Norris blockhouse headquarters, 18, 157 Mission 66 program, Norris, Philetus Walter, architectural style. See Park Service Modern. accomplishments of superintendency, 4, 12 conceptualization of, 142, 143 biographical sketch, 1–2 Conrad Wirth and, 138, 141, 144 construction of park facilities and, 9, 10 legacy of, 137, 148, 152, 159, 160 exploration of park, 5 Mission 66 in Yellowstone National Park, gamekeeper and, 7 at Bridge Bay, 145, 153, 155 Native Americans and, 5, 8 campgrounds, 154, 155 protection of park and, 6 at Canyon Village, 146, 149–151 Queen’s Laundry bathhouse, 10 “Firehole Village”, 145, 146, 148 scientific study and, 7, 9 at Grant Village, 147, 153 signs and, 11 pamphlet, “Mission 66 in Yellowstone Na- Norris Soldier Station, 62, 63, 157 tional Park,” 145 North Entrance Arch. See Roosevelt Arch. Mosquito control efforts, 90 Northern Pacific Railroad, 12, 13, 32, 61 Muldrow, H. L., 27 Nursery, 112, 138 Murie, Olaus J., 140 Museums, as part of education of park visitors, 75, 97, O 98, 100, 101 branch (also called “trailside”), 101, 103, Oastler, Frank R., 100, 101, 105, 107 105, 120 Obsidian Cliff interpretive wayside or nature shrine, Buffalo Jones, 100 130, 131 Colonel Lloyd Brett and, 62 “Officers’ dog house,” 39, 63 Fishing Bridge, 101, 102, 127–129, 141 Olmsted, Jr., Frederick Law, 67, 74, 90, 116 headquarters information office, 98, 99 Otter Creek bear feeding ground. See bear feeding

218 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” grounds. Q Outhouses. See comfort stations. Queen’s Laundry bathhouse, 4, 10 Queen Anne style, 29 P

“Pagoda”. See U.S. Engineers’ Office. R Park biologist, position created, 140 Ranger station/community centers, Park naturalist, at Canyon, 120, 129, 146, 150, 151 Clyde Max Bauer, 141, 152 concept of, 85, 86, 89, 90, 148 David deLancy Condon, 152, 153 design of, 124 John Good, 153 at Lake, 87, 88, 128 Robert McIntyre, 153, 157 at Old Faithful, 86 Park rangers, Rangers. See park rangers. activities and routine of, 72, 78, 99, 106 Reamer, Robert, 61, 63 creation of position in Yellowstone National Redinger, Matthew A., 111, 112 Park, 57, 58, 67 Rockefeller, Jr., John D., 96, 101 need for a civilian corps of, 52, 56, 57, 69, Rogers, Edmund Burrell, 77 bear feeding grounds, 133, 134, 140 in other national parks, 52, 100 biographical sketch, 138 seasonal positions, 99 campgrounds and, 154 Park Service Modern, 143, 146, 148, 150–151, 159 Modern design of park structures and, 143, Pitcher, Colonel John, 144 biographical sketch, 27 moving headquarters and, 139 bison and, 46 Rolfe, Mary, 98, 99 construction of park facilities and, 31, 33, 34, Roosevelt Arch, 31–34, 69, 89, 119, 124 39 Roosevelt, President Franklin D., 111, 114 fish hatchery and, 46 Roosevelt, President Theodore, 33, 53, 54 Lamar Buffalo Ranch and, 46, 47 Ruger, Brigadier General Thomas, 29 landscaping and, 32, 34 Russell, Carl P., 105, 130, 131, 134 visitor facilities and, 49, 50 Rustic style architecture, 63, 88, 139, 143 Poaching, 6, 7, 14, 16, 20, 36, 37, 39, 42–44, 46, 74 Powell, John Wesley, 21, 24 Predator control policy, 41, 45, 106, 107, 136 S Pryor, Anna K., 118 Public Works Administration (PWA), 109, 115, 123, Sargent, Charles, 41 139, 143 Sawyer, Daniel E., 14, 22 Punchard, Jr., Charles P., Sawyer, Edmund J., 99, 105 amphitheaters and, 128 Schullery, Paul, 41, 45, 71, 104, 108, 156, 159, 160 “Landscape Design in the National Park Schurz, Carl, 4, 7, 9, 11 Service” article, 80 Science in the park, 5, 9, 21, 43, 97, 125 ranger station/community center design and, Scott, Major General Hugh L., 57 82, 85 Scouts, 37–39, 45, 52–54, 57, 62, 71, 76 recommendations for improvement of YNP, Scoyen, E. T., 146 80, 81, 84 Senate bill 392, 1 Shaw & Powell Camping Company, 73, 84 Sheridan, General Philip H., 14, 16, 24, 25, 27 Signs, 11, 15, 22, 40, 49, 50, 67, 72, 82, 104,

Index 219 123–125, 130 creation of, 4, 11, 12 Simmons, R. Laurie and Thomas H., 29, 30, 63 nature. See education/self-guiding trails. Skinner, Milton P., 98 Trailside Notes, 131 Snowshoe cabins, Tuttle, Merritt I., 86 construction of, 62, 64, 79, 82, 88, 89, 91, Tweed, William C., 109, 114, 120 92, 95, 96 idea behind, 35–38 list of in 1900, 19 U oldest existing example, 122 rustic design of, 121 U.S. Army, standardized plan for, 122 management of Yellowstone National Park, Soda Butte Cabin, 127 24, 25, 27, 51, 52, 55–58, 68, 76, 77 Soda Butte Creek, 5, 7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 18, 31, 67, 77 Soldier stations, U.S. Engineer’s Office (the “Pagoda”), 32, 34, 60, 77, Bechler River, 63, 64 80 Crevice Mountain, 64 U.S. Fish Commission, East Entrance, 64 construction of fish hatchery, 34, 45 Gallatin, 64, 72 U.S. Geological Survey, 21, 24, 29, 49, 58, 66, 97 Lake, 64 U.S. Weather Bureau, Lower Geyser Basin, 64 closing of in Yellowstone, 138 Norris Geyser Basin, 62–64, 157 construction of weather station, 34 Riverside, 64 Ucker, Clement C., Snake River, 39, 64 report of, 55, 61 Soda Butte, 64 Underwood, Gilbert Stanley, 93, 94 Thumb (West), 63, 64 Upper Slough Creek Ranch, 88 Tower Fall, 64 Utah Northern Railroad, 12 Upper Geyser Basin, 64 Stephens Creek Administrative Area, 107, 112, 127 Stinson, A. C., 117 V Sundry Civil Appropriations Bill of 1883, 14 Vandalism, 9, 13, 20, 24–27, 41, 43, 44 Vest, Senator George Graham, 14, 16, 17, 21, 24, 26 T Vick, Denise, 97, 141, 152, 153 Vint, Thomas Chalmers, “Three-headed monster”, 52 master plans and, 115–119 Taft, President William Howard, 55 Mission 66 and, 146, 149, 151, 155 Teller, Henry M., 13, 15–20 rusticity and, 95, 109, 120, 121, 123, 124 Thompson, Ben H., 134, 135, 140 Visitor Centers, Tilden, Freeman, 152, 153 Albright (at Mammoth Hot Springs), 98 Toll, Roger Wolcott, at Canyon, 149, 150 bear feeding grounds and, 110, 132, 133 Cecil John Doty and, 150, 151 biographical sketch, 110 at Grant Village, 149, 153 campgrounds and, 114, 129, 155 Visitor observation facilities, construction of park museums and, 127, 128 platforms, 63, 81, 108 master plans and, 116, 117, 119 Vitale, Ferruccio, 101, 103, 116 park service green and, 123 Vogelsang, Alexander, 77 Toole, Joseph K., 24 Tourist management, 25, 40, 50 Trails,

220 Managing the “Matchless Wonders” W “Wyoming law” of 1884, 17, 21–24

War Department, conflict with Department of Interior, 28, Y 51–58 Wasson, Isabel Bassett, 98, 99 Yeager, Dorr G., 105, 106 Waugh, Frank Albert, 80, 128, 141 Yellowstone National Park Organic Act of 1872, 1, 2, Wear, David W., 5, 156 biographical sketch, 20 Yellowstone Nature Notes, 98, 140 protection of park and, 20–22 Yellowstone Park Improvement Company (YPIC), Wyoming law and, 21, 23, 24 13, 16, 17, 20 West Thumb development, Yellowstone Park Transportation Company, 34, 49 abandonment of, 147 Yellowstone Timber Land Reserve, 36 West Thumb fish eyeing facility, 34 Young, Lieutenant Colonel Samuel Baldwin Marks Western Office of Design and Construction (S. B. M.), (WODC), 147, 149–151 biographical sketch, 26 Whittaker, George, 118 camping and, 48, 49, 72 Wilder, Wilber Elliot, 26, 31, 38, 45 civil guard and, 53, 54 Wildlife, 3, 5–7, 12, 14, 25, 36, 40–43, 50, 68, 69, construction of park facilities and, 30, 32, 71, 79, 105–107, 110, 127, 133–135, 137, 138, 62, 67 140, 144, 155, 156, 160 logbooks at park outposts and, 38 Wilson, Edward, 22, 36 military management of park and, 51, 52 Wilson, President Woodrow, 56 predator control and, 45, 70 Wirth, Conrad, Yount, Harry, 7,12 Fort Yellowstone and, 139, 158, 159 Mission 66 and, 138, 141, 144 Woodring, Chief Ranger Samuel T., 78, 87, 91, 95, Z 121 Work, Hubert, 82, 84, 91, 100, 101 Zoo, Owrld War II, 138–141 at Buffalo Jones museum, 100 Wright, George M., 110, 134, 135, 140 wildlife sent to Washington, D.C., 44 Wylie Permanent Camping Company, 48, 49, 73, 84

Index 221